Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, adam hodgkin wrote:

> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.1
> your claim 'The difference between give-away and non-give-away
> work is the single most important Post-Gutenberg distinction'.
> is grandiloquent, rather loose and surely false unless very
> carefully qualified.

I stand by what I said. And although it is not my habit to send people scurrying
off to read chapter and verse, it might not do any harm if you had a look at 
what
has been at issue for the past 15 years concerning what has latterly come to be
dubbed "Open Access." I sense that you yourself will be running afoul of these
grandiloquent distinctions (you already have done, once!) and it would
save my having to repeat, one-on-one, what has already been thrashed
out so many times already in this Forum.

Pertinent Prior AmSci Topic Threads:

"For Whom the Gate Tolls?" (1998)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/.html

"What is wrong with this picture? (Refereed Journal Publishing)" (2000)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0695.html

"Distinguishing the Essentials from the Optional Add-Ons" (2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1437.html

"Producer Give-Aways Vs. Consumer Rip-Offs" (2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1490.html

"Napster: stealing another's vs. giving away one's own" (2002)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1905.html

"On not conflating the give-away and non-give-away literature" (2002)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2003.html

"PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research" (2001)
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci01/0249.html

Harnad, Stevan (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution
in the Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer
Systems Review 2 (1): 39 - 53 (also reprinted in PACS Annual Review
Volume 2 1992; and in R. D. Mason (ed.) Computer Conferencing: The
Last Word. Beach Holme Publishers, 1992; and in: M.  Strangelove &
D. Kovacs: Directory of Electronic Journals, Newsletters, and Academic
Discussion Lists (A. Okerson, ed), 2nd edition. Washington, DC,
Association of Research Libraries, Office of Scientific & Academic
Publishing, 1992); and in Hungarian translation in REPLIKA 1994;
and in Japanese in "Research and Development of Scholarly Information
Dissemination Systems" 1994-1995.  http://cogprints.org/1580

> The MOST important post-Gutenberg distinction?
> For what purpose? Only on a very narrow focus in a very special context
> could this possibly be true. I take it you mean post-Gutenberg-era
> (not post-Gutenberg), and surely we can think of many more important
> distinctions such as: referred/referring, cited/not-cited, true/false,
> relative/absolute, derivative/new, transient/archival etc

You will note that all your proposed distinctions are Gutenberg distinctions 
too.
You might also consider context-relevant/context-irrelevant...

> I missed some of the support for your argument in the piece to
> which you refer me through a number of bad links in the passage. There
> are three bad links in the section to which you refer me, their lack
> of reference detracts from the clarity of the argument.

Alas, link-rot is one of the perils of the medium until OA and
more robust archiving prevails. Ask me about specific links and I'll
give you updates.

Hal Varian's data on how much is written:
http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/11_00lyman.htm
seem to be down temporarily.

The ARL usage stats have moved to:
http://www.cisp.org/imp/november_2000/11_00lyman.htm

> I wonder if you should more clearly specify what you mean by '
> bulk of the written literature' (bad link).

See above, or Hal Varian's publication list.

> In the post-Gutenberg era
> a lot of writing (eg web pages, grey literature,   email to lists,
> blogs etc) is not refereed but by common understanding it is
> literature and it is also author-giveaway;

Two more Post-G distinctions you're again transgressing:

"1.4. Distinguish self-publishing (vanity press) from self-archiving (of
published, refereed research)"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4

"1.5. Distinguish unrefereed preprints from refereed postprints"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.5

(It would be helpful if you did a little catch-up before you got to your
substantive points. There is only one of me, and I can't re-tell bottom-up
in real time every time...)

> and so refereed
> scholarly/scientific research publishing is not SO anomalous as you
> suggest with respect to t

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, Elizabeth Gadd wrote:

> Yes, we can all add our corrigenda files, but who really wants to read
> a research paper that way?

Compared to what? Surely it is infinitely preferable to not being able to
read a research paper at all, because one's institution cannot afford the
toll access (as is true for *all* researchers, at *all* institutions,
for *most* of the annual 2,000,000 research papers appearing in
the at least 20,000 existing refereed journals, for *most* of which any
given institution cannot afford the toll-access!).

The status quo for those papers to which one's institution cannot afford
toll-access is *no-access*. Surely there can be no doubt that open
access to the preprints + corrigenda would be immeasurably better than
no access!

Moreover, more and more publishers are now agreeing to authors'
self-archiving their refereed postprints too. And the corrections are
often not that many. And the self-archived corpus is growing and growing:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/tim.ppt

Does it make any sense at all to make open-access wait for, or
weight itself down with, the added handicap of first trying to get
copyright-retention too?

That is my only point: These two (related) agendas need to be clearly
disentangled, so authors fully understand that they can make their
work open-access immediately, and that there is no dependency on or
prerequisite for copyright retention, whatsoever. Copyright retention
is indeed worth pursuing too, but in its own right, independently of
self-archiving rights and open access.

> As Pam and Steve [Hitchcock] point out, there are activities that
> researchers, academics, and libraries, would like to perform that they
> cannot if copyright is owned by the publisher.

I have replied about that too. Those extra activities are worthwhile,
and worth pursuing, but *not* as a part of the open-access agenda,
and not at the cost of slowing or weighing down the open-access agenda,
or of giving the incorrect impression that the two agendas are the same,
or dependent on one another, or have the same rationale, motivation,
or justification. The road to open access to refereed research is clear:
Let us not now needlessly clutter it with other things.

> The fact is that publishers do not *need* copyright assignment (or an
> exclusive licence - often the same thing by the way) in order to publish.
> They require only a non-exclusive licence. Why then assign copyright?

And the fact is also that authors do not *need* copyright retention to
self-archive and provide open access to all of their refereed research
output. So why burden them, and obstruct the path, with needless efforts
at copyright retention too? Make it clear that copyright retention is
desirable (for many reasons), but that it is *not* necessary for
open-access through self-archiving, and should not be pursued as a
co-condition, but merely an extra option. Otherwise it will handicap the
growth of self-archiving and open access.

> The value that publishers add to the publishing process should not,
> in my view, be paid for by copyright assignment. It should be rewarded and
> protected in other ways.

All true and fine, but a different agenda, a much bigger one than the
self-archiving right. Pursue it, but make it clear that it is a distinct
agenda, and not a precondition or a co-condition for the self-archiving
if all refereed research, right now. Conflating copyright retention and
open access

Stevan Harnad

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Elizabeth Gadd]

I have sympathy with Stevan's view that encouraging authors to retain
copyright (and publishers to do without it) may prove a complicating
factor in the bid for open access. I also agree that being licenced back
the right to self-archive is a big step in the right direction. However,
we have to remember that over a quarter of publisher's policies (in
the RoMEO analysis) do not give the author the right to do anything
at all with their own work, let alone self-archive. And, although
50% of journals on the RoMEO publisher copyright policies listing --
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%2
0Policies.htm -- allow author self-archiving, 30% only allow
self-archiving of the preprint. Yes, we can all add our corrigenda files,
but who really wants to read a research paper that way? As Pam &
Steve point out, there are activities that researchers, academics, and
libraries, would like to perform that they cannot if copyright is owned
by the publisher.

The fact is that publishers do not *need* copyright assignment (or an
exclusive licence - often the same thing by the way) in order to publish.
They require only a non-exclusive licence. Why then assign copyright?
Instead of publishers licensing back to academics the right to perform a few
meagre activities with the academic's own intellectual property, why don't
academics license the publisher the meagre rights they need to publish the
work?  The value that publishers add to the publishing process should not,
in my view, be paid for by copyright assignment. It should be rewarded and
protected in other ways.

Elizabeth

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Steve Hitchcock wrote:

> ... in many cases for authors to reserve a self-archiving right, rather
> than copyright, is sufficient, but not in every case... One example is
> where you might want to [1] reuse data in more than one paper. [T]here are
> cases where research results [2] could be usefully be presented to different
> audiences, where these audiences are understood and the work is carefully
> targetted.

(1) Data *can* be re-used, all one likes. (It is up to the referees to
decide whether there is any point merely re-presenting the data, but if
there is, there is certainly no *copyright* basis for not re-presenting
one's own data -- perhaps suitably reformatted! -- in further publications!)
(In addition, open-access raw-data archiving will soon make it possible
to *link* to the raw data, already openly accessible, rather than just
including tiny subsets of it within the text-length limits of an
article!)

(2) As to re-publishing the *text* itself, rather than just the data:
This surely is -- and should be -- primarily a journal-policy matter:
One of the main reasons journals do not wish to re-publish an
already-published paper is that it wastes precious (and freely-given)
referee time to referee, again, a paper that has already been refereed
(and published!) elsewhere. Another reason is of course to protect sales
income (in both directions: the first publisher does not want the second
publisher cutting his sales, and vice versa).

Open access of course goes a long way toward remedying both of these
problems: (1) Data can be self-archived and simply *data-mined*
repeatedly for different publications. (Some form of data-refereeing
will no doubt also co-evolve with the practise of data-archiving.)
(2) And open access to the full-text mitigates or even moots some
of the motivation for duplicate publication.

But apart from that, I would reply to Steve as I did to Pam: Don't
needlessly handicap a huge, important and reachable goal -- open full-text
access through self-archiving -- by holding out for, or insisting upon,
more than is really necessary (i.e., holding out for full copyright
retention, rather than settling for merely the self-archiving right). Open
access is far too important to delay it for that.

If teaching/learning uses are not a justification for muddying the
waters, the author's yen for multiple publication of the same paper
certainly isn't either -- especially in the open-access age!

(The specific problem Steve refers to -- in trying to place our
co-authored paper in more than one journal in order to reach more
than one audience -- is more a publicising problem than a publication
problem [our paper being both a scientometric research paper *and* an
open-access advocacy paper], and it is a symptom of this transitional
stage, where publication plus open-access is not yet quite enough,
because open-access has not yet prevailed, so not everyone is looking at
the open-access version as the locus classicus. Patience! It will come;
impatience now -- about multiple publication, and hence full copyright
retention -- will only delay its coming.)

Stevan Harnad

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Steve Hitchcock]

I agree with Elizabeth that it is clearly beneficial for authors to retain
copyright, and I'm not sure why we are not actively formulating a strategy
to help and encourage more authors to do this.

Stevan may be right that in many cases for authors to reserve a
self-archiving right, rather than copyright, is sufficient, but not in
every case. One example is where you might want to reuse data in more than
one paper. I'm not suggesting slicing-and-dicing, where essentially the
same paper is regurgitated more than once, which is deprecated but widely
practiced. But there are cases where research results could be usefully be
presented to different audiences, where these audiences are understood and
the work is carefully targetted.

This approach, I think, is more rather than less likely in a digital
environment, as we can see more uses for original data, and to suggest
otherwise is an example of what Stevan calls papyrocentric thinking.

In fact, we have a paper ready for publication that might appeal to more
than one audience. Different co-authors (including Stevan) have different
views on the preferred audience. We have good data which might serve more
than one purpose. For this reason I am loathe to sign away copyright to
first publication. Among the journals we have considered for peer review,
the more prominent demand copyright, with vague or no concessions on
self-archiving rights. We have yet to decide on a suitable course of action.

Perhaps we should not expect the best journals to accept less than full
copyright transfer. I don't agree. Good journals are not good because the
hold exclusive rights, but because they provide the best service for their
authors and readers.

Steve

At 11:47 03/03/03 +, Stevan Harnad wrote:

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 Elizabeth Gadd  wrote:

>sh> if [authors] retain the self-archiving right, that is sufficient

> I would beg to differ here. Retaining copyright is far superior to
> assigning it, even with a self-archiving concession. The reason being: if
> academics retain their copyright they are in a position to state how
> end-users may use their work (e.g. multiple copies, print, save, as long as
> author is attributed, etc). If academics assign their copyright, even if
> the publisher allows them to self-archive, end-users may only *legally* use
> that work under the restrictive constraints of copyright law (one copy for
> research and private study in the UK).

What would be a very useful exercise for those who believe that having a
full-text permenantly accessible to every web-user on the planet 24
hours a day does *not* provide all the possible uses that the author of
that give-away research want to ensure that every potential user has (in
order to maximize the paper's usage and research impact) would be to
list those extra, missing uses. Of the ones Lizzie lists above, not a
single one is not provided by permanent full-text open-access on the web:

(1) Multiple copies: Access the web as often as you like. Same for other
would-be users. No individual has more than one pair of eyes, so there
is no need for more than one web-access per human user, per use. (Same goes
for online search engines, and for any future text- or data-analyzing
software agents: they are all serial processors, though rather fast
ones...)

(2) Individual human web-users may print off a copy of the full-text
whenever they wish. Pay as much attention to any purported legal
injunction not to print it off for yourself as to any purported legal
injunction to look at it on-screen with only one eye open. (But don't
distribute printed copies to others: Simply distribute the URL -- to be
used by one and all for any research or "private study" use they may
wish to make of it. Ditto for the data contained therein, for further
research analysis and application.)

(3) As to author-attribution: I would certainly agree (wouldn't you,
Lizzie?) that the authorship should always be attributed to the true
author. I certainly would not wish to sanction others' passing off my
writing as their own.

(4) As to the right to print-off and distribute multiple hard copies
to others: There is no need for this as long as the others too have
web-access. This seems a reasonable way to protect the publisher from
the logical next-step, which is another publisher's right to print-off
and sell hard copies to others. All of this becomes moot online.

These worries are symptoms of our not yet having quite grasped what open
online access really means. They are residues of papyrocentric categories
and functions that are simply obsolete in the online world.

Stevan Harnad

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2003, Pam Davies wrote:

> But in the context of learning and teaching there are indeed possible
> uses that the author might want which are "not provided by permanent
> full-text open-access on the web:"

In the growing momentum toward open-access to refereed research a number
of sticking-points have held back progress until now, and this needless
and hard-to-defend linkage between research goals and teaching goals is
one of them.

The researcher/author's rationale and justification for open-access and
self-archiving is and must be purely research-based. The objective against
which no publisher can or will place himself into direct opposition
is the goal of maximizing the impact of the published research. Research
is written for fellow-researchers. Research impact means those
fellow-researchers taking up the research and using and building on it
in turn in their own research. Not constraining *that* in
any avoidable way (given the remarkable new possibilities created
by the online age) is the clarion call of the open-access movement:
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/unto-others.html

Yes, there may be other beneficial side-effects of open access too:
Greater access for the developing world, greater access to teachers
and students and the general public, perhaps even eventual relief for
the library serials crisis. But those other beneficial side-effects are
not only *not* ones that the publishers need to heed, because they are
*not* specific to the intrinsic purposes of doing refereed research,
but they are in fact blurring and blunting the one true, incontestable
rationale for open-access: That the research is for researchers, for
research impact, and the online medium makes open access to it possible
at last.

To put it very simply: It would be difficult, indeed impossible, for a
publisher to explicitly deny the researcher's right to maximise the
impact of his own research by self-archiving it so as to make it openly
accessible for all its potential researcher/users in the new online
medium. To add the stipulation "and for course-packs too" is simply to
open up an altogether different can-of-worms, one that would be very hard
to argue on its own merits alone. (Publisher: "So, does this mean I have
to agree to open-access with course-pack rights for your textbooks and
books too?")

In the context of learning and teaching, I know where libraries are
coming from, with their struggles for fair-use, both for the work of
their own local authors, and for the work of authors at other
institutions. But this is a *completely different* ball-game, and has
complexities of its own -- complexities of which the refereed research
literature, and the rationale of opening access to it for the sake
of research-use and research-impact, is itself thankfully free.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5.2

To obtrude these other, wider and less defensible concerns onto the
clearcut, focused case for open access for the sake of research impact,
is simply to condemn the growing progress toward open-access to more
years of unsuccessful wrangling with publishers. Copyright retention is
not *needed*. Nor is the right to make course-packs. All that is needed is
the right to publicly self-archive the full-text on the web. The force
behind the rationale for open access in that case is the new online medium
itself: The *web* is what has made it possible at last for researchers
to maximise the potential impact of their own give-away work (refereed
research) -- written (unlike other writings, such as textbooks or books)
for research impact alone -- by maximising access to it online. To now
add the issue of "paper access for teaching purposes for those who do
not have web access" is simply inviting needless (and understandable)
resistance.

And for no reason! Because teaching uses *will* be hugely enhanced by
making this precious corpus (20K+ journals' worth) openly accessible to
all web-users. We must resist the temptation to try to force the
open-access movement to lie in the procustean bed with other (worthy but
papyrocentric) causes. Doing so will not enhance the other causes; it
will merely encumber -- gratuitously -- the cause of open-access.

> 1:  in reply to Stevan's point 4:  The key words are "as long as the others
> too have web-access".  But not everyone has access to the web.  There are
> courses taught by distance learning, either by post or by face-to-face
> tuition in off-campus locations, where the students do not all have
> networked PCs.  In some cases a tutor would like to offer these students
> access to his or her own research papers, and the right to make multiple
> print copies (or, for the more technically sophisticated but still
> non-networked, burning to CDROM) is needed.
>
> 2:  authors may also want to include all or part of their authored papers in
> online or CDROM teaching materials, either solely for their own institution
> or for wider use.  A link to the openly avai

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Pam Davies]

Stevan says, in reply to Lizzie Gadd:

> From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
> Sent: 03 March 2003 11:47
> What would be a very useful exercise for those who believe that having a
> full-text permenantly accessible to every web-user on the planet 24
> hours a day does *not* provide all the possible uses that the author of
> that give-away research wants to ensure that every potential user has (in
> order to maximize the paper's usage and research impact) would be to
> list those extra, missing uses. Of the ones Lizzie lists above, not a
> single one is not provided by permanent full-text open-access on the web:
> ...
> (4) As to the right to print-off and distribute multiple hard copies
> to others: There is no need for this as long as the others too have
> web-access. This seems a reasonable way to protect the publisher from
> the logical next-step, which is another publisher's right to print-off
> and sell hard copies to others. All of this becomes moot online.

But in the context of learning and teaching there are indeed possible
uses that the author might want which are "not provided by permanent
full-text open-access on the web:"

1:  in reply to Stevan's point 4:  The key words are "as long as the others
too have web-access".  But not everyone has access to the web.  There are
courses taught by distance learning, either by post or by face-to-face
tuition in off-campus locations, where the students do not all have
networked PCs.  In some cases a tutor would like to offer these students
access to his or her own research papers, and the right to make multiple
print copies (or, for the more technically sophisticated but still
non-networked, burning to CDROM) is needed.

2:  authors may also want to include all or part of their authored papers in
online or CDROM teaching materials, either solely for their own institution
or for wider use.  A link to the openly available web source is not always
going to be adequate:  they may wish only to refer the student to a section
of the paper, or the student may be working from a CDROM so that it is
preferable to be able to include the whole paper rather than rely on the
student having web access and good network links for downloading.

So retention of copyright should be our goal, rather than only permission to
self-archive.

Best wishes,

Pam

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 Elizabeth Gadd  wrote:

>sh> if [authors] retain the self-archiving right, that is sufficient

> I would beg to differ here. Retaining copyright is far superior to
> assigning it, even with a self-archiving concession. The reason being: if
> academics retain their copyright they are in a position to state how
> end-users may use their work (e.g. multiple copies, print, save, as long as
> author is attributed, etc). If academics assign their copyright, even if
> the publisher allows them to self-archive, end-users may only *legally* use
> that work under the restrictive constraints of copyright law (one copy for
> research and private study in the UK).

What would be a very useful exercise for those who believe that having a
full-text permenantly accessible to every web-user on the planet 24
hours a day does *not* provide all the possible uses that the author of
that give-away research want to ensure that every potential user has (in
order to maximize the paper's usage and research impact) would be to
list those extra, missing uses. Of the ones Lizzie lists above, not a
single one is not provided by permanent full-text open-access on the web:

(1) Multiple copies: Access the web as often as you like. Same for other
would-be users. No individual has more than one pair of eyes, so there
is no need for more than one web-access per human user, per use. (Same goes
for online search engines, and for any future text- or data-analyzing
software agents: they are all serial processors, though rather fast
ones...) 

(2) Individual human web-users may print off a copy of the full-text
whenever they wish. Pay as much attention to any purported legal
injunction not to print it off for yourself as to any purported legal
injunction to look at it on-screen with only one eye open. (But don't
bother to distribute printed copies to others: Simply distribute the URL
-- to be accessed directly by one and all for any research or "private
study" use they may wish to make of it. Ditto for the data contained
therein, for further research analysis and application. And ditto also
for the right to "save": Permanent public access to the full-text saved
for one and all on the Web surely trumps saving a local copy (but feel
free to save a local copy too: the disk-police will be looking for pirated
proprietary music and software, not downloads of publicly available
web-pages!).

(3) As to author-attribution: I would certainly agree (wouldn't you,
Lizzie?) that the authorship should always be attributed to the true
author. I certainly would not wish to sanction others' passing off my
writing as their own.

(4) As to the right to print-off and distribute multiple hard copies
to others: There is no need for this as long as the others too have
web-access. This seems a reasonable way to protect the publisher from
the logical next-step, which is another publisher's right to print-off
and sell hard copies to others. All of this becomes moot online.

These worries are symptoms of our not yet having quite grasped what open
online access really means. They are residues of papyrocentric categories
and functions that are simply obsolete in the online world.

Stevan Harnad

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Elizabeth Gadd]

> Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> Government researchers are contractually forbidden to transfer
> copyright for their research reports, so they simply license the
> right to publish and sell to the publisher, as in the Nature license:
> http://npg.nature.com/pdf/05_news.pdf
>
> There is no reason all authors of refereed research
> articles should not do the same; but there is also no need. If
> they retain the self-archiving right, that is sufficient;
>
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20
Policies.htm

I would beg to differ here.  Retaining copyright is far superior to
assigning it, even with a self-archiving concession.  The reason being: if
academics retain their copyright they are in a position to state how
end-users may use their work (e.g. multiple copies, print, save, as long as
author is attributed, etc).  If academics assign their copyright, even if
the publisher allows them to self-archive, end-users may only *legally* use
that work under the restrictive constraints of copyright law (one copy for
research and private study in the UK).

Elizabeth Gadd
*
Elizabeth Gadd, Research Associate &
Editor,  Library and Information Research
Department of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough, Leics, LE11 3TU
Tel: +44 (0)1509 222178  Fax: +44 (0)1509 223053
Email: e.a.g...@lboro.ac.uk

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003, [identity deleted] wrote:

> In some of the copyright-ceding forms researchers sign when publishing in a
> refereed journal, there are special exemptions for researchers carrying out
> US government-supported research.
>
> Do you know, whether these researchers are only ceding certain components of
> the copyright, and if this is the case, which components they are retaining?

Government researchers are contractually forbidden to transfer
copyright for their research reports, so they simply license the
right to publish and sell to the publisher, as in the Nature license:
http://npg.nature.com/pdf/05_news.pdf

There is no reason all authors of refereed research
articles should not do the same; but there is also no need. If
they retain the self-archiving right, that is sufficient;
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/Romeo%20Publisher%20Policies.htm

And even with the most restrictive copyright tranfer
agreement, there are legal ways to achieve almost the same outcome:
http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publisher-forbids

Copyright is a nonproblem: The only problem is researchers' own
sluggishness in providing open-access to their give-away research by
self-archiving it. Momentum is growing, however, and the outcome is
inevitable (and optimal for research and researchers).

Stevan Harnad

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Colin Day]

- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: 
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:00 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

.

> In the earlier, pre-codification "oral tradition," when the only
> "product" that poets, tale-tellers and musicians had in mind was their own
> real-time performance skill (a "service," I suppose), all they wanted was
> payment for their time! Their lifetime benefits came from the reputation
> of their performing skills, and I suppose they thought of those as their
> only legacy too.

In fact, there are examples of such people embedding their identity into
their poetry in such a way that others could not perform their poems without
giving due recognition to the original creator of the work. Recognition as
always been as powerful a motivator as financial reward, and as strong an
influence on the development of systems for asserting ownership.

Colin Day

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Seth Johnson]

Im America, the "codification" of which Stevan speaks must
not be called a property right.  It is an artificial
monopoly that may be granted (or for that matter, denied) by
Congress within very important parameters.  The
"giveaway/nongiveaway" distinction serves a political
purpose, while it must be stressed that in the area of
copyright, it fails to emphasize that we are speaking of an
artificial grant of exclusive rights to "expression" per se,
as opposed to any creation of a "property" right to
information.

Seth Johnson

Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> theft of text
>
> owning [. . .] one's "text's authorship" rather than
> one's "intellectual property" or one's "moral rights"
> -- for the give-away texts (mainly research reports,
> before and after peer review) with which this Forum
> is concerned.
>
> Changing one's vocabulary helps, but alas it is no
> substitute for understanding and thinking clearly.
> And for that, I find the giveaway/nongiveaway
> distinction far, far more important -- yet hitherto
> completely unmarked with a terminological distinction
> of its own.

--

[CC] Counter-copyright:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/cc/cc.html

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or
distribution of this incidentally recorded communication.
Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but
only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual
practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no
claim of exclusive rights.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

Stevan:

So the phrase " text authorship" is the solution, is it? And "authorship",
unlike " property" is merely a neutral word with none of its own baggage?

Too bad Michel Foucault is not a member of this list.

Alan Story
Kent Law School

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

>sh>  But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
>sh>  intellectual property, even if it is give-away text.  All that means is
>sh>  that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
>
> The usual meaning of the term "intellectual property" is something
> different: it means "copyright, patent, trademark, and various other
> things."  If the meaning above is what you intend to say, and if you
> would like people to understand your intended meaning, I suggest you
> find a different way to say it.

I suppose the problem arises from the historical fact that what had
been the main motivation of authors of texts for wanting to assert and
protect their authorship of their texts was so that they (or rather,
their publishers) could sell copies of them (and hence expenses could
be covered and profits and royalties could be earned).

In the earlier, pre-codification "oral tradition," when the only
"product" that poets, tale-tellers and musicians had in mind was their own
real-time performance skill (a "service," I suppose), all they wanted was
payment for their time! Their lifetime benefits came from the reputation
of their performing skills, and I suppose they thought of those as their
only legacy too.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/chartier.htm
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.performance.html
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad91.postgutenberg.html

With the advent codification, a new potential "product" was born,
the text (or score), and protection from theft of authorship and
protection from theft of text were wrapped into the same thing:
"copyright protection." (There was little precedent from prior products,
as paintings and sculptures were hand-made by the artist; perhaps
bootleg prints were the inspiration for copyright?)

That was also why publishers told authors that transfering the copyright
to them was necessary to allow them (the publishers) to pursue and
prosecute any legal infractions of their (the authors') rights, whether
theft of authorship (plagiarism) or theft of text (making/selling
unauthorized copies).

So, although it is clear (in so many ways) that the real problem here
is conceptual, and logical, not just terminological, I will be happy to
follow Richard's advice and henceforth refer to owning and protecting
one's "text's authorship" rather than one's "intellectual property" or
one's "moral rights" -- for the give-away texts (mainly research reports,
before and after peer review) with which this Forum is concerned.

Changing one's vocabulary helps, but alas it is no substitute for
understanding and thinking clearly. And for that, I find the
giveaway/nongiveaway distinction far, far more important -- yet hitherto
completely unmarked with a terminological distinction of its own.

"Five Essential PostGutenberg Distinctions"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1

> But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What
> is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of
> texts.
>
> I agree and will take it a step further: even when something is good
> and true for written works, such as software or scientific texts, it
> is not necessarily good and true for ideas about programming
> techniques, pharmaceuticals, or plant varieties, or genes.  Copyright
> on software is not the same issue as copyright on scientific articles,
> and neither of them is the same issue as patents.
>
> The term "intellectual property", which lumps together copyrights and
> patents leads people to limit consideration to simplistic
> across-the-board approaches.  If you would like to encourage people to
> distinguish the issues of different kinds of works, it makes sense for
> you join me in discouraging the term that lumps everything together as
> one issue.

Agreed! I shall no longer utter the word "intellectual property" (except
to disparage it as inadequate and Procrustean).

Stevan Harnad

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Richard Stallman]

But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
intellectual property, even if it is give-away text.  All that means is
that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.

The usual meaning of the term "intellectual property" is something
different: it means "copyright, patent, trademark, and various other
things."  If the meaning above is what you intend to say, and if you
would like people to understand your intended meaning, I suggest you
find a different way to say it.

But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What
is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of
texts.

I agree and will take it a step further: even when something is good
and true for written works, such as software or scientific texts, it
is not necessarily good and true for ideas about programming
techniques, pharmaceuticals, or plant varieties, or genes.  Copyright
on software is not the same issue as copyright on scientific articles,
and neither of them is the same issue as patents.

The term "intellectual property", which lumps together copyrights and
patents leads people to limit consideration to simplistic
across-the-board approaches.  If you would like to encourage people to
distinguish the issues of different kinds of works, it makes sense for
you join me in discouraging the term that lumps everything together as
one issue.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Chris Zielinski]

Fytton Rowland asked:

< But whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of
text, I still retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and
for it not to be changed, etc. Am I right?>

Yes in droit d'auteur countries (France, Germany, etc.).

Yes in the UK unless 1) the work is an explicitly excluded moral rights
category like "journalism", 2) the work was written for hire, or 3) the
author was impelled/constrained to relinquish his/her moral rights (as
generally happens in "all-rights" contracts in broadcasting in the UK.
Journal-ism in the sense of papers written for journals would ordinarily
be covered by moral rights, although it's a moot, rarely tested and
probably delicate point if academics are considered as writing for hire
for their institutions (probably not, but don't push it).

No in the US in general, but specific cases could be defended on the
basis of case law.

I was going to write about this in connexion with Stevan's comments on
plagiarism, which I believe could be actionable under civil law, but not
necessarily under copyright.

Best,

Chris Zielinski
Director, Information Waystations and Staging Posts Network
18 Monks Orchard, Petersfield, Hants GU32 2JD, United Kingdom
Tel: Home: 0044-1730-301297 Office: 0044-1730-710324
Mobile: 0044-797-10-45354 Fax: 0044-1730-265398
e-mail: informa...@supanet.com
web site: http://www.iwsp.org


-Original Message-
From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org] On Behalf 
Of Fytton
Rowland
Sent: 22 July 2002 12:40
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

There is still confusion about the term "intellectual property" (IP)
here.  IP
is not a propaganda term; it is an accurate description -- if I make
somethin
new, it is my property and I can decide whether to sell it, give it
away, lease
it, bequeath it or whatever.  If I decide to sell, or give away, my IP
to a
publisher, I lose the right to distribute copies myself unless my
agreement
with the publishing company permits me to.  If I retain the IP myself
but
choose to give away copies for nothing to anybody who wants one, I can
still
prevent others from selling (or giving away) copies without my
permission.  But
whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I
still
retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to
be
changed, etc.

Am I right?

Fytton Rowland.

Quoting Stevan Harnad :

> On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> >sh>Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual
> >sh>property.
> >
> > To refer to a text as someone's "intellectual property" spreads a
> > dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion.  (See
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more
explanation
> > of why this is so.)
>
> Richard, I've read the GNU passage, and I agree that "intellectual
> property" is not a good descriptor for software, as code can be built
> onto and out of others' code and programmers and users are better
served
> if the code is open and can be modified by others.
>
> But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed
my
> intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is
> that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
>
> Now that I have read your recommended passage, can I ask you to read
> mine?
>
> "5. PostGutenberg Copyright Concerns"
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5
>
> We are in agreement that copyright lawyers and perhaps legislators are
> trying to force disparate things -- like music, patents, software, and
> texts (both give-away and non-give-away) -- into the same Procrstean
> bed, and that the results are not only unsatisfactory but sometimes
even
> logically incoherent.
>
> But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What
> is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true
of
> texts.
>
> >sh>The text is still the author's
> >sh>intellectual property," in the sense that authorship is retained
by
> >sh>he author, and the text may not be plagiarized by anyone,
> >
> > That is even more confusing, since it stretches the meaning of
> > "intellectual property" even further than normal.
>
> Not at all. What could be simpler? I wrote this text. No one else may
> claim to have written it. End of story. (The rest is about whether or
> not I deem it a give-away text.)
>
> Copyright has (and always has had) at least two functions:
>
> (1) To protect against t

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Picciotto, Sol]

Moral rights always remain with the author.

I agree with Richard Stallman, intellectual property is an ideologically loaded
term. It implies that rights to an intellectual creation are the same as owning
other assets, and that using another person's without permission is simple
`theft'. Intellectual creations are fundamentally different in that not only
can they easily be shared, they need to be shared. The GNU licence is one way
to do this, although Stevan may be right that it has limited applicability
beyond software.

To develop other ways we will need to work with publishers. While Stevan is
also right that we should not demonize them, I think he is wrong to suggest
that we can ignore them, and that the answer (for the research literature at
least) is simply in the hands of authors. His procedure for pre-prints and
post-prints may be a practical one, but in my view it would not survive a legal
challenge by a publisher who has obtained a standard rights assignment from the
author. It is essential that we persuade as many publishers as possible to
accept that authors can retain the rights to open-archive their work.

One reason why academic authors have been slow to take up open-archiving may be
that they think it is an alternative to publishing in the standard
peer-reviewed format, rather than complementary to it. The key to complementary
development is to use the power academics have over journals, via the many
journals owned by societies and associations, as well as our role in the
editorial processes, and ultimately in libraries' decisions on subscriptions.
While Stevan is right that these are separate issues, they are intertwined
threads of the same piece of string.

cheers

sol


*

Sol Picciotto
Lancaster University Law School
Lonsdale College
Lancaster LA1 4YN
direct line (44) (0)1524-592464
fax (44) (0)1524-525212
s.piccio...@lancs.ac.uk

*


-Original Message-
From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk]
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 3:07 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:

> whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I
still
> retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to be
> changed, etc.

Yes, that's my understanding too. Perhaps "moral right" is a more
transparent term than "intellectual property."

I think we need to hear from Charles Oppenheim on this...

(Also, what becomes of the moral right if a text is put in the public
domain?)

Stevan

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Graham P Cornish]

Fytton is partly partially right in the UK context.  Moral rights are
available only if the original work was not written for a newspaper,
magazine or periodical (so articles in electronic journals would not
qualify) AND the author must assert the right at the time the work is made
available.

The recurring problem is that creators of  copyright works (as opposed to
other forms of IP) get a bundle of rights WHETHER THEY WANT THEM OR NOT and
have to take steps to disclaim them rather than assert many of them.  The
opposite is true in the UK for moral rights.

Graham Cornish
Don't miss our one-day conference on "Fears and hopes in copyright"
(September 18th. York) when we shall explore the new legislation and its
implications for library management and also start to draw up a "shopping
list" of changes we want in the future.  Details at
www.copyrightcircle.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Fytton Rowland" 
To: 
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2002 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> There is still confusion about the term "intellectual property" (IP) here.
IP
> is not a propaganda term; it is an accurate description -- if I make
somethin
> new, it is my property and I can decide whether to sell it, give it away,
lease
> it, bequeath it or whatever.  If I decide to sell, or give away, my IP to
a
> publisher, I lose the right to distribute copies myself unless my
agreement
> with the publishing company permits me to.  If I retain the IP myself but
> choose to give away copies for nothing to anybody who wants one, I can
still
> prevent others from selling (or giving away) copies without my permission.
But
> whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I
still
> retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to
be
> changed, etc.
>
> Am I right?
>
> Fytton Rowland.
>
> Quoting Stevan Harnad :
>
> > On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > >sh>Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual
> > >sh>property.
> > >
> > > To refer to a text as someone's "intellectual property" spreads a
> > > dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion.  (See
> > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation
> > > of why this is so.)
> >
> > Richard, I've read the GNU passage, and I agree that "intellectual
> > property" is not a good descriptor for software, as code can be built
> > onto and out of others' code and programmers and users are better served
> > if the code is open and can be modified by others.
> >
> > But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
> > intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is
> > that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.
> >
> > Now that I have read your recommended passage, can I ask you to read
> > mine?
> >
> > "5. PostGutenberg Copyright Concerns"
> > http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5
> >
> > We are in agreement that copyright lawyers and perhaps legislators are
> > trying to force disparate things -- like music, patents, software, and
> > texts (both give-away and non-give-away) -- into the same Procrstean
> > bed, and that the results are not only unsatisfactory but sometimes even
> > logically incoherent.
> >
> > But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What
> > is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of
> > texts.
> >
> > >sh>The text is still the author's
> > >sh>intellectual property," in the sense that authorship is retained by
> > >sh>he author, and the text may not be plagiarized by anyone,
> > >
> > > That is even more confusing, since it stretches the meaning of
> > > "intellectual property" even further than normal.
> >
> > Not at all. What could be simpler? I wrote this text. No one else may
> > claim to have written it. End of story. (The rest is about whether or
> > not I deem it a give-away text.)
> >
> > Copyright has (and always has had) at least two functions:
> >
> > (1) To protect against theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism)
> >
> > (2) To protect against theft-of-text (piracy, a word I know you don't
> > like, when applied to software, but perfectly valid when applied to
> > non-give-away text)
> >
> > ALL text authors want copyright protection of their intellectual
> > property
> > (sic), their t

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

I am not sure that you really want to get into this terrain but

" Moral rights" essentially do not exist in US copyright law ( except for
visual artists and in certain cirsumstances where they are not called moral
rights.); indeed, US law is essentially hostile to moral rights and was able
to force though a section of the TRIPS agreement exempting moral rights as a
requirement for national statutory protection. Moral rights are derived from
author's rights systems in Contintental Europe. They do exist in the UK by
statute.

" Moral rights" should NOT be conflated with intellectual property...and it
is no more of a transparent term. Indeed " moral rights" is a bad
translation of the French word " droits moraux", roughly personal rights.

Alan Story
Kent Law School
Canterbury UK

-Original Message-
From: September 1998 American Scientist Forum
[mailto:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org]On Behalf 
Of Stevan
Harnad
Sent: Monday 22 July 2002 15:07
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:

> whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I
still
> retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to
be
> changed, etc.

Yes, that's my understanding too. Perhaps "moral right" is a more
transparent term than "intellectual property."

I think we need to hear from Charles Oppenheim on this...

(Also, what becomes of the moral right if a text is put in the public
domain?)

Stevan

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2002, Fytton Rowland wrote:

> whether I transfer the IP to someone else or not, in the case of text, I still
> retain the moral right to be identified as its author, and for it not to be
> changed, etc.

Yes, that's my understanding too. Perhaps "moral right" is a more
transparent term than "intellectual property."

I think we need to hear from Charles Oppenheim on this...

(Also, what becomes of the moral right if a text is put in the public
domain?)

Stevan

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Fytton Rowland]

 have authored it, it would still be a
> violation of his rights, even after he had assigned the copyright,
> without restrictions, to a publisher.
>
> I am not an expert in this (nor especially interested in it, I might
> add), but I believe that it is only if an author puts his text in the
> public domain that he loses the intellectual property rights, i.e., he
> cannot prosecute someone for plagiarizing it.
>
> (I am not sure about this last matter, and someone may wish to correct
> me,
> but please, let us not side-track the Forum discussion into these
> esoteric
> paths http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1713.html as it
> is not what we are concerned about here. We are concerned with GIVEAWAY
> texts -- peer-reviewed research articles -- for which their authors
> definitely want to retain authorship; but they also want them accessible
> for free for all.)
>
> See also:
> "PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research"
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html
>
> Stevan Harnad
>
> NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
> access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
> American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):
> 
> http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
> or
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
>
> Discussion can be posted to:
> american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org
>
> See also the Budapest Open Access Initiative:
> http://www.soros.org/openaccess
>
> and the Free Online Scholarship Movement:
> http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
>
>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:

>sh>Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual
>sh>property.
>
> To refer to a text as someone's "intellectual property" spreads a
> dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion.  (See
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation
> of why this is so.)

Richard, I've read the GNU passage, and I agree that "intellectual
property" is not a good descriptor for software, as code can be built
onto and out of others' code and programmers and users are better served
if the code is open and can be modified by others.

But this formula simply does not fit text. The text I write is indeed my
intellectual property, even if it is give-away text. All that means is
that no one else is allowed to claim to have authored it.

Now that I have read your recommended passage, can I ask you to read
mine?

"5. PostGutenberg Copyright Concerns"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5

We are in agreement that copyright lawyers and perhaps legislators are
trying to force disparate things -- like music, patents, software, and
texts (both give-away and non-give-away) -- into the same Procrstean
bed, and that the results are not only unsatisfactory but sometimes even
logically incoherent.

But it is important that you should not do the same thing either! What
is good for and true of software is not necessarily good for and true of
texts.

>sh>The text is still the author's
>sh>intellectual property," in the sense that authorship is retained by
>sh>the author, and the text may not be plagiarized by anyone,
>
> That is even more confusing, since it stretches the meaning of
> "intellectual property" even further than normal.

Not at all. What could be simpler? I wrote this text. No one else may
claim to have written it. End of story. (The rest is about whether or
not I deem it a give-away text.)

Copyright has (and always has had) at least two functions:

(1) To protect against theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism)

(2) To protect against theft-of-text (piracy, a word I know you don't
like, when applied to software, but perfectly valid when applied to
non-give-away text)

ALL text authors want copyright protection of their intellectual property
(sic), their text, from (1), theft-of-text-authorship (plagiarism).

Only NON-give-away authors want copyright protection of their intellectual
property, their non-give-away text, from (2), theft-of-text (piracy).

You are quite right that (1) has nothing to do with "copying" in the
sense of making copies bearing the author's correct name. So perhaps the
legal protection against plagiarism should not be subsumed under
"copyright" law in this sense. But that is a mere terminological matter,
for one can certainly describe copying my text without my name, and
affixing your name to it, as an illicit form of copying. So maybe it
should stay under copyright law after all.

> To avoid confusion, I suggest you rewrite it as follows:
>
> When you write an article, you are the copyright holder; you
> are free to give away or sell copies, on-paper or on-line
> (e.g., by self-archiving), as you see fit.

Unfortunately, that does not quite cover it. For an author may be
foolish enough to sign a copyright transfer agreement, assigning all
rights to give away or sell his texts, online or on paper, to someone
else, say, a publisher. But that would still not alter the matter of
intellectual property, i.e., authorship. He would still be the author.
And if someone else claimed to have authored it, it would still be a
violation of his rights, even after he had assigned the copyright,
without restrictions, to a publisher.

I am not an expert in this (nor especially interested in it, I might
add), but I believe that it is only if an author puts his text in the
public domain that he loses the intellectual property rights, i.e., he
cannot prosecute someone for plagiarizing it.

(I am not sure about this last matter, and someone may wish to correct me,
but please, let us not side-track the Forum discussion into these esoteric
paths http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1713.html as it
is not what we are concerned about here. We are concerned with GIVEAWAY
texts -- peer-reviewed research articles -- for which their authors
definitely want to retain their authorship (their intellectual
proprietership); but they also want those full-texts to be accessible
online, and fully copiable, for free for all.)

See also:
"PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1309.html

Stevan Harnad

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
Americ

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Richard Stallman]

Texts that an author has himself written are his own intellectual
property.

To refer to a text as someone's "intellectual property" spreads a
dangerous propaganda term which also spreads confusion.  (See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more explanation
of why this is so.)

The text is still the author's
"intellectual property," in the sense that authorship is retained by
the author, and the text may not be plagiarized by anyone,

That is even more confusing, since it stretches the meaning of
"intellectual property" even further than normal.

To avoid confusion, I suggest you rewrite it as follows:

When you write an article, you are the copyright holder; you
are free to give away or sell copies, on-paper or on-line
(e.g., by self-archiving), as you see fit.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

First of all, apologies. I should not have approved the posting by
Albert Henderson, which was branched from another list. It was a mistake.
As it has appeared here, however, I will comment, though this has
already been said many times before on this list.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Albert Henderson wrote:

> on Fri, 5 Apr 2002 Jan Velterop  asked:
>
> I would be interested to know what Albert Henderson thinks about the
> widespread requirement that authors of scientific papers hand over their
> copyright to the publisher, when they submit their papers for publication to
> scholarly journals, without sharing any of the often substantial profits of
> those journals.

Jan asks this of Albert because Albert regularly claims that universities
are being venal, witholding funds from university libraries, funds that
could otherwise remedy the serials crisis. It is not a good idea to
reply to Albert with this "tu quoque" argument, as Jan does, because
the truth is that the universities are not witholding money, and
publishers, as businesses, are doing nothing wrong in trying to
maximize their profits. The only relevant factor is researchers and
their institutions. They are the only ones in a position to remedy
these anomalies.

Having been invited into this "tu quoque" fray, Albert of course obliges:

>  With the prices of journals the subject of so
>  many complaints, it would seem provocative
>  for authors, whose main income is research grants,
>  to demand royalties. The circulation of journals
>  is negligible by the standards of mass media. The
>  royalty payments would be chicken feed by any
>  standard. Yet royalties would undoubtedly increase
>  publishers' prices.

This is correct, and Jan has simply reaped what he has sown, with his
rhetorical question. Royalties are totally beside the point, so why
bring them up at all (except to point out that they are irrelevant to
this special, anomalous literature). The objective is to hasten free
access to this give-away research, not to joust with Albert about
whether it is universities or publishers who are the more venal. And
what authors are deprived of by toll-based access is research impact,
not royalties.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.2

>  The preparation cost of each article is considerable,
>  even before the first copy is distributed. With
>  the doubling and re-doubling of R&D spending every
>  15 years or so, and the consequent 'information
>  explosion,' authors need recognition and dissemination,
>  more than cash, from their publishers.

And that preparation cost is largely paid for by the author's research
institution and research grants. The only open question is who should do,
and pay for doing, the mark-up. For that, please turn to the substantive
thread below, as it will certainly not be discussed substantively on the
present thread:

"Re: The True Cost of the Essentials"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1989.html

>  Moreover, publishers typically return to authors a
>  variety of rights to use their articles, satisfying
>  authors' needs for dissemination. Many journals also
>  have supplied reprints for this purpose. I would
>  be glad to send anyone such a reprint of my editorial
>  [SCIENCE. 289:243 2000].

Albert, though he uses email, is otherwise still living in the
papyrocentric era of reprints, otherwise he would know that today the
only way of "satisfying authors' needs for dissemination" is to make
their eprints freely accessible online -- which, coincidentally, is the
substantive issue under discussion in this Forum.

To sample some candidate copyright transfer agreements for this PostGutenberg
era, see:

   http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#publishers-do

To repeat, this has nothing to do either with Albert's commitment to
preserving the paper-age status quo (at whatever cost to researchers,
their institutions and their research impact), nor with Jan's red herring
concerning royalties.

>  Authors' are guided by the desire for recognition
>  and dissemination in their choices of where to
>  submit their papers. Recognition is provided by the
>  authority of established peer review. Dissemination
>  comes from the readership which has been attracted
>  by the journal's aim, scope, and record.

And it is simply no longer true, PostGutenberg, that access to those
peer-reviewed papers has to be held hostage to publishers' access
tolls.

The peer review costs at most $500 per paper. The planet is currently
paying, on average, $2000 per paper (in collective subscription/license
tolls, paid by those institutions that can afford them, and with access
accordingly restricted only to them). It is obvious to anyone who can
count that if that $500 were paid directly, as a peer-review service
charge per outgoing paper, per institution, rather than as an
access-toll per incoming paper, per institution, as it is now, then
there is more than enough money already changing hands to pay this
essential

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on Fri, 5 Apr 2002 Jan Velterop  asked:
 
> I would be interested to know what Albert Henderson thinks about the
> widespread requirement that authors of scientific papers hand over their
> copyright to the publisher, when they submit their papers for publication to
> scholarly journals, without sharing any of the often substantial profits of
> those journals.  

With the prices of journals the subject of so 
many complaints, it would seem provocative 
for authors, whose main income is research grants, 
to demand royalties. The circulation of journals 
is negligible by the standards of mass media. The 
royalty payments would be chicken feed by any 
standard. Yet royalties would undoubtedly increase 
publishers' prices. 

The preparation cost of each article is considerable,
even before the first copy is distributed. With
the doubling and re-doubling of R&D spending every
15 years or so, and the consequent 'information
explosion,' authors need recognition and dissemination, 
more than cash, from their publishers.

Moreover, publishers typically return to authors a 
variety of rights to use their articles, satisfying 
authors' needs for dissemination. Many journals also 
have supplied reprints for this purpose. I would
be glad to send anyone such a reprint of my editorial  
[SCIENCE. 289:243 2000].

Authors' are guided by the desire for recognition 
and dissemination in their choices of where to 
submit their papers. Recognition is provided by the
authority of established peer review. Dissemination 
comes from the readership which has been attracted
by the journal's aim, scope, and record. 

In the context of the Urgent Inquiry below, it
seems to me that a silent partner -- in effect
some business manager -- whose main interest 
might well be to steer papers to co-owned 
journals would be anathema to the aims of 
authors and readers. Perhaps the most important 
aspect of joint owership is the unwelcome right 
of the 'silent partner' to interfere, perhaps 
even to censor the speech of the author. 
Industrial sponsors who consider research as a 
means to further marketing goals have 
reportedly withheld publication of important 
data. Now we have universities that wish to 
funnel papers to journals that they own through 
the SPARC consortium and university presses or 
to journals that they favor through overlapping 
commercial interests. The 'silent partner' is a 
potential demon in any relationship.

Finally, I cannot understand the disparaging
use of the word 'profit.' Even before Henry 
Oldenberg created the PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS, 
the first science journal, profit has been a 
welcome motive. Associations seek surplus
revenues much as commercial publishers do.
The main differences are (1) that editors 
and volunteers for association publishers have 
more influence on management decisions and (2) 
commercial publishers pay taxes and distribute 
their profits to shareholders. 

Excessive profits are more likely to be found 
among our private research universities -- U.S. 
institutions that cut library spending in half. 
They report bottom-line tax-free profits double 
that of publicly held publishers. They also 
retain miserly billions of dollars while 
subjecting libraries and their members to 
impoverished resources while trying to shift
the blame with half-truths, innuendo, and
lies. Indeed, they have made some librarians
the medium for such propaganda. 

Thanks for asking.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Albert Henderson [mailto:chess...@compuserve.com]
> > Sent: 04 April 2002 17:03
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Urgent inquiry re copyright
> > 
> > 
> > on 4 Apr 2002 "Rimi B. Chatterjee"  wrote:
> >  
> > > I have a query regarding the copyright of works produced by 
> > scholars when
> > > in employment, and i need answers soon because my institute 
> > is about to
> > > pass a resolution on this, and i've only just heard of it.
> > > It seems that the Institute is making a rule whereby the 
> > copyright of any
> > > scholarly work published by an institute employee will belong to the
> > > institute and the institute will take 60 % of the copyright 
> > fee, with 40 %
> > > going to the writer. The memo talks about intellectual 
> > property meaning
> > > patents, copyrights,  tradermarks, design, new plant 
> > varieties, circuit
> > > lay

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stubbs, Leorita (CAM)]

Dear Colleagues

I was wondering if anyone could help answer a couple of question regarding
electronic copyright.
Does anyone have any experience in advising organisation on the
implementation of Electronic Document Management System (EDMS). What are the
copyright implications or issues related to this? Are there any new
developements relating to license/laws to electronic copying/storage for the
corporate environment?
 
Your help are much appreciated

Regards

Leo Stubbs

Leorita J. Henry Stubbs
Company Librarian
Celltech R&D Ltd, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB1 6GS
Tel: +44 (0)1223 896300 Fax:+44 (0)1223 896400
mailto:leo.stu...@cam.celltechgroup.com
 


The information contained in this email is intended for the
personal and confidential use of the addressee only. It may
also be privileged information. If you are not the intended
recipient then you are hereby notified that you have received
this document in error and that any review, distribution or
copying of this document is strictly prohibited. If you have
received  this communication in error, please notify Celltech
immediately on:

+44 (0)1753 534655, or email 'i...@celltech.co.uk'

Celltech Group plc
208 Bath Road, Slough, SL1 3WE, Berkshire, UK

Registered Office as above.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:

> sh> whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
> sh> quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
> sh> critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
> sh> report itself, and the referee reports on it -- are always provided
> sh> gratis by researchers. The journal merely implements this peer review
> sh> process (processes the manuscript, selects the referees, processes
> sh> their reports) -- an essential service, but a highly circumscribed
> sh> one.
>
> Referees don't review for free. They get something
> of greater value than money. Behind the scenes, each
> journal organizes activities which are as vital to
> the development of top scientists as publication.
> Closely related, often under the aegis of the publisher,
> are conferences, meetings, seminars, and other
> volunteer participation.

So could you run that by me again, Albert? When I am asked by a journal
to referee a paper, in what sense am I not giving my time for free?

And what are all these activities that are worth more than money?
Because I'll settle, as an author, for peer review and free and full
access to my research for all its potential users. (How much of that
potential impact should I be prepared to sacrifice for, say, lowered
meeting fees? Might I not prefer that meetings and other "good works"
finance themselves on their own merits, rather than my research
impact?)

And what has this to do with the time I spend refereeing?

Albert, the causal picture you try to paint here is a confused jumble
of non-sequiturs and arbitrary associations, with neither causality nor
necessity working in its favor or even making sense of it. It is a
hopeless attempt to defend an indefensible status quo merely on the
grounds that that's the way it has been until now, and that's the way
it ought to be.

The truth is that referees do referee for free; and there is no causal
dependency whatsoever between that and the independent "good works" of
learned societies that are funded from (part of) their publication
revenue.

In contrast, the causal dependency between the access-tolls that
fund those independent "good works" and the lost potential impact of
authors (who likewise give away their research reports for free) is
real enough, but negative: The "good works" are purchased at the
expense of researchers' potential research impact. Authors have not yet
realized this, but once they see it directly, do you have any doubt as
to what their reply will be?

For example, can you imagine a copyright transfer statement that ran
like this:

Authors, please check one:

(1) I hereby surrender my right to self-archive my paper online, so
as to allow the Society to sell it instead in order to fund its
other good works (activities, meetings, etc.).

OR

(2) I retain my right to self-archive my paper online; let the
Society find other ways to fund its good works.

Fortunately, authors need not wait until their publishers offer them
this explicit choice. They can already have their (peer-reviewed) cake
and eat it (free the access to it online) too, by using the preprint +
corrigenda strategy when the copyright transfer policy is too
restrictive:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim

> Moreover, each journal brings order out of chaos
> by selecting, vetting, and rejecting. It supplies
> a coherent flow of information related by its aim,
> scope and point of view. A specialized reader will
> find not only reports of primary research but meeting
> notices, comments, reviews, abstracts of papers and
> other items of particular interest.

The "selective, vetting, and rejecting" is called peer review. That
costs 10% of what is now being paid for collectively in annual
access-tolls for their incoming refereed research by those institutions
that can afford to pay those tolls. If they all got that money back, the
peer-review for their outgoing research could easily be covered by 10%
of their 100% windfall savings, and the refereed research would be free
for all.

Should publishers immediately downsize to providing only that 10%
service right now? Of course not. They should continue to sell the
add-ons (on-paper, PDF, online enhancements) via access-tolls as long
as there is still a market for them.

But should researchers meanwhile wait for the freeing of their
research from all access/impact barriers online? Of course not. They
should self-archive it all now.

Or should they wait because of those "meeting notices, comments,
reviews, abstracts of papers and other items of particular interest"?

I don't think so. Let them be put in a newsletter and sold for whatever
the market will bear, but let them not be used as a pretext for holding
the primary refereed research hostage for one minute longer.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Arthur Smith]

Ok, I'll admit I've taken the bait...

Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Arthur Smith wrote:
>
> [...]
> >
> > Is it perhaps that evaluating according to these criteria is NOT
> > necessarily provided free?
>
> The journal's subject matter and slant are a (trivial) part of
> the peer-review costs.

Note my phrasing: "evaluating according to", not merely defining. The
fact that a journal has a particular subject area and slant is
presumably given. The fact that every article HAS to be evaluated by an
editorial person according to these criteria is NOT, and is where many
costs come in. For example, for one of our journals (Phys Rev Letters)
most of the cost is in rejecting articles that don't fit the journal's
criteria for importance and general interest, not merely the criterion
of correctness or "quality".

>
> [...various compliements - appreciated...]
>
> But I think even the APS cannot make a realistic
> estimate of what it would cost them if the ONLY service they provided
> were peer-review (no paper, no PDF).

Actually, we can. It's really not very hard. Our editorial operation is
completely separated from our copyediting and production services (which
are done by outside vendors: AIP, or Beacon graphics). We have 9 staff
members who enter new manuscripts into the database and deal with
problems in authors' electronic files, and 3 more staff members who deal
with hard-copy mail (manuscripts or correspondence), and 3 staff members
who deal with some pre-marking copyediting for Phys Rev Letters. And
that's it out of a staff of 110 (not counting any of the IS staff in
this). If 100% of our authors used OAI compliant archives to submit
papers, and we didn't bother with the manuscript files at all except to
verify titles/authors etc. information, we could probably cut 8-10
positions, out of the 110. Now, as we've given numbers here before, the
current editorial office costs here (again not counting the computer
staff) add up to about $700-$800 per accepted article. So, by cutting
8-10 positions out of 110, we're down to perhaps $640-$740 per accepted
article. Woohoo!

> [...]
> Arthur, all I advocate is ubiquitous author/institution self-archiving,
> now. Whether the actual figure for peer review turns out to be 10% or
> 30% does not matter very much.

Then PLEASE stop repeating the 10% or $200 figure. A factor of 3 or more
error in your statements diminishes your credibility, and severely
misleads anybody who believes your number. Just stop it. Now. That's all
I ask.


> > There are other
> > models out there - think about the rating and review system at
> > Amazon.com, for example. Can the sciences adopt something along those
> > lines? That could cut costs...
>
> I think you know that I am opposed to such systems (as untested and
> unlikely to be able to maintain current quality levels).

In contrast, I don't think we are opposed to such a system in principle.
It could be a great new way to do things. I'd love to have the resources
to try some experiments in this area. Amazon of course has not proven it
can recover its costs doing what it is doing either.

> > but if we don't look at other models
> > we'll all just keep doing what we're doing, and it's always going to
> > cost about the same, and libraries or institutions or whoever foots the
> > bill will just have to keep it up. And Open Archives will continue to be
> > basically irrelevant.
>
> Alas I could not follow the logic of that. Self-Archiving can and
> should free the refereed literature now. How to cover the essential
> peer review costs if and when S/L/P can no longer do so is a bridge we
> can cross when we get to it. Even at 30% there would be plenty to cover
> it. So what are we disagreeing about? And how does it follow that S/L/P
> continues to have to be paid at current levels, and that self-archiving
> is irrelevant?

Either author self-archiving is sufficient to provide access to the
peer-reviewed literature, or it isn't. If it is, then journal S/L/P as
it currently exists can be cut by libraries and institutions with no
loss to those institutions, and publishers will have to go begging to
keep doing the peer review stuff, or will simply abandon it. If author
self-archiving is NOT sufficient (which is what I interpreted Sally
Morris' comments to imply) then my statement follows, and the open
archiving is basically irrelevant to the  journal pricing problem which
it is supposedly addressing. And looking at the evidence, as
demonstrated in fields such as High Energy Physics for which even
commercial journals seem to be still quite viable (after 10 years of
pretty complete author self-archiving), author self-archiving is not
sufficient in this sense.

Author self-archiving is fine in itself, and certainly it can greatly
increase access for remote and poorer places in the world, but it won't
be doing anything to cut costs to libraries unless the 3rd party forum
represented by peer review and journal editorial processes itsel

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on 25 Jul 2001 Stevan Harnad  wrote:
 
> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> 
> > sh> whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
> > sh> quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
> > sh> critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
> > sh> report itself, and the referee reports on it -- are always provided
> > sh> gratis by researchers. The journal merely implements this peer review
> > sh> process (processes the manuscript, selects the referees, processes
> > sh> their reports) -- an essential service, but a highly circumscribed
> > sh> one.
> >
> > Referees don't review for free. They get something
> > of greater value than money. Behind the scenes, each
> > journal organizes activities which are as vital to
> > the development of top scientists as publication.
> > Closely related, often under the aegis of the publisher,
> > are conferences, meetings, seminars, and other
> > volunteer participation.
> 
> So could you run that by me again, Albert? When I am asked by a journal
> to referee a paper, in what sense am I not giving my time for free?

Anyone who believes no value is gained by participating
is free to refuse. Some do. Some ask for money. Some
get money.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[George Lundberg]

and, believe it or not, editors perform a (some) useful function(s), or at
least editors and publishers seem to  think they do
of course i am biased (ie informed)
george d lundbergeditor JAMA  17 years,  Medscape 2.5 years

-Original Message-
From: Albert Henderson [mailto:chess...@compuserve.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:09 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


on 24 Jul 2001 Stevan Harnad  wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sally Morris wrote:
>
> > I was particularly interested in what Stevan said about journals: "We
have
> > the established journal, with its reliable, known, quality-control
"tag,"
> > its name, associated until now with articles of a known kind and
quality."
> >
> > I think this is an enormously important aspect of what journals (and
those
> > who create and publish them) actually do. The journal is a kind of
> > 'envelope' in which readers can be reasonably confident of finding
content
> > on a particular subject, possibly with a particular editorial slant or
> > article type, and of a certain general quality standard.
>
> But let us not forget that the quality of a journal is owed entirely to
> the quality of its peer reviewing (and peers review for free).
>
> So whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
> quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
> critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
> report itself, and the referee reports on it -- are always provided
> gratis by researchers. The journal merely implements this peer review
> process (processes the manuscript, selects the referees, processes
> their reports) -- an essential service, but a highly circumscribed
> one.
>

Referees don't review for free. They get something
of greater value than money. Behind the scenes, each
journal organizes activities which are as vital to
the development of top scientists as publication.
Closely related, often under the aegis of the publisher,
are conferences, meetings, seminars, and other
volunteer participation.

Moreover, each journal brings order out of chaos
by selecting, vetting, and rejecting. It supplies
a coherent flow of information related by its aim,
scope and point of view. A specialized reader will
find not only reports of primary research but meeting
notices, comments, reviews, abstracts of papers and
other items of particular interest.

The chaos proposed by 'self-archiving' serves no one
well but the university manager obsessed with
profitability.

[snip]

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>


**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender or call Medscape at 877-676-1597.
**

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, 24 Jul 2001, Arthur Smith wrote:

> First of all, Sally Morris suggested a few other things than just
> "quality" as important journal characteristics: subject, editorial
> slant, and confinement to particular article types were also on her
> list. Is there some reason these are not on yours?

They're on my list but seem to me too trivial to mention -- and
certainly not a reason for raising the estimate of the cost of the
essential quality-control service to higher than the 10% of current
collective global outlay per article ($2000 on average) in the form of
(institutional) Subscription, License, and Pay-per-view (S/L/P) by those
institutions that can afford it.

> Is it perhaps that evaluating according to these criteria is NOT
> necessarily provided free?

The journal's subject matter and slant are a (trivial) part of
the peer-review costs.

> Furthermore, the "quality tag" for a manuscript, as we have explained
> here repeatedly in the past, is not simply a matter of "processing"
> referee reports, but involves subtle human judgments by the editorial
> staff.

I agree.

> Now you'll argue that we are an unusual and exceptional case in
> actually paying our editors, but the process itself is complex and
> requires even without the editorial effort, considerable human effort in
> reading, tracking and correlating bits of correspondence that arrive
> concerning a manuscript, spread at times over months or years.

Arthur's employer, the American Physical Society (APS), publishes the
most prestigious and highest quality journals in physics, their
copyright policy is the most progressive of all publishers to date, and
a model for them all. But I think even the APS cannot make a realistic
estimate of what it would cost them if the ONLY service they provided
were peer-review (no paper, no PDF). It would be very instructive to
find out on what line-items an estimate for more than about $200 per
accepted article was based. I am ready to believe it is higher, but we
need to see the figures, and make sure they are only for the essential
service in question, and not for any of the add-ons that APS (and all
other publishers) still provide (and should, as long as there is a
market for them).

> That is why I find so offensive your claim that:
> >
> > [...] The peer review accounts for only 10% of the cost,
>
> where did that number come from? From previous discussions I've seen you
> always seem to cut in 1/2 or 1/3 the reasonable estimates from others
> who are advocating open archives. Do you just pick these numbers out of
> thin air? As we've repeatedly stated, our current peer review costs are
> much higher than that, and not likely to be cut very significantly even
> with all the fancy electronic tools becoming available.

Our 1/3 debates of yesteryear (never 1/2!) were based on the publisher's
continuing to produce an online PRODUCT (the text PDF), not just the
peer-review service (leaving all the rest to the Archives). With the
possibility of ubiquitous, interoperable distributed OAI-compliant
Institution-based Archiving now a realistic option, all that arithmetic
needs to be redone. I am guided in part by Andrew Odlyzko's estimates
(Andrew?).

Odlyzko, A.M. (1998) The economics of electronic journals. In:
Ekman R.  and Quandt, R. (Eds) Technology and Scholarly
Communication. Univ. Calif. Press, 1998.
http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/complete.html

Odlyzko, A.M. (1999a) Competition and cooperation: Libraries and
publishers in the transition to electronic scholarly journals, A.
M. Odlyzko. Journal of Electronic Publishing 4(4)
http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/04-04/odlyzko0404.html

Odlyzko, A.M. (1999b) The rapid evolution of scholarly
communication," to appear in the proceedings of the 1999 PEAK
conference.
http://www.research.att.com/~amo/doc/rapid.evolution.pdf

> Whether or not Open Archives actually succeed in forming a way of easily
> getting at the literature free (I see there are now some 250,000
> articles available) there is a fundamental need within the sciences for
> the kind of forum a journal provides, an "envelope" as Sally Morris
> suggests, where the new concepts and ideas of a particular researcher
> are accepted as potential valuable contributions to the furthering of a
> particular discipline. An author-controlled distribution system is
> simply fundamentally incapable of providing that 3rd party acceptance
> function. And commercial journal publishers (in particular Elsevier,
> which continues its hegemonic acquisitions and 40% profit margins), even
> in high energy physics which is basically 100% covered by the ArXiv,
> seem to have very little to fear from all the noise in the corner.

I couldn't follow the causal connections in what you said above,
Arthur. Why is a journal's peer-review imprimatur not enough to provide
all the above for a self-archived article?

Moreover, I have no particular beef with Elsevier. Authors should
sim

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on 24 Jul 2001 Stevan Harnad  wrote:
 
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sally Morris wrote:
> 
> > I was particularly interested in what Stevan said about journals: "We have
> > the established journal, with its reliable, known, quality-control "tag,"
> > its name, associated until now with articles of a known kind and quality."
> > 
> > I think this is an enormously important aspect of what journals (and those
> > who create and publish them) actually do. The journal is a kind of
> > 'envelope' in which readers can be reasonably confident of finding content
> > on a particular subject, possibly with a particular editorial slant or
> > article type, and of a certain general quality standard.
> 
> But let us not forget that the quality of a journal is owed entirely to
> the quality of its peer reviewing (and peers review for free).
> 
> So whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
> quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
> critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
> report itself, and the referee reports on it -- are always provided
> gratis by researchers. The journal merely implements this peer review
> process (processes the manuscript, selects the referees, processes
> their reports) -- an essential service, but a highly circumscribed
> one.
> 

Referees don't review for free. They get something
of greater value than money. Behind the scenes, each 
journal organizes activities which are as vital to 
the development of top scientists as publication. 
Closely related, often under the aegis of the publisher,
are conferences, meetings, seminars, and other
volunteer participation. 

Moreover, each journal brings order out of chaos
by selecting, vetting, and rejecting. It supplies
a coherent flow of information related by its aim, 
scope and point of view. A specialized reader will 
find not only reports of primary research but meeting
notices, comments, reviews, abstracts of papers and
other items of particular interest. 

The chaos proposed by 'self-archiving' serves no one
well but the university manager obsessed with 
profitability.

[snip]

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sally Morris wrote:

> I was particularly interested in what Stevan said about journals: "We have
> the established journal, with its reliable, known, quality-control "tag,"
> its name, associated until now with articles of a known kind and quality."
>
> I think this is an enormously important aspect of what journals (and those
> who create and publish them) actually do. The journal is a kind of
> 'envelope' in which readers can be reasonably confident of finding content
> on a particular subject, possibly with a particular editorial slant or
> article type, and of a certain general quality standard.

But let us not forget that the quality of a journal is owed entirely to
the quality of its peer reviewing (and peers review for free).

So whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
report itself, and the referee reports on it -- are always provided
gratis by researchers. The journal merely implements this peer review
process (processes the manuscript, selects the referees, processes
their reports) -- an essential service, but a highly circumscribed
one.

The rest of what journals provide -- on-paper and on-line versions of
the text, distribution, on-line enhancements like reference-linking,
etc.) are merely optional add-ons. They are not the essentials. Yet
that is what 90% of journal subscriptions and licenses pay for. The peer
review accounts for only 10% of the cost, and, if ever there is no
longer a market for the optional add-ons, the essentials can be paid
for up-front, by the authors' institutions, in the form of
quality-control costs for its OUTGOING refereed research, out of 10% of
its annual windfall savings from what had previously been (and is
currently) its subscription/license budget for INCOMING research.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

> An established journal which performs this function doesn't just happen.
> Publishers carry out extensive market research to discover whether an idea
> for a new journal (which may have been suggested by an academic, or by a
> member of the publisher's staff) has any viability in terms of potential
> authors and readers. If the idea looks viable, then considerable time,
> effort and money will be invested in creating and launching the journal,
> which is unlikely to bring in any profit/surplus whatsoever for 5 years or
> more.

All true, but largely irrelevant to the question of freeing the
refereed research literature. The start-up costs in question were those
of establishing a paper journal. Start-up costs for on-line-only
journals are much lower, and for online-only journals that provide only
the peer-review, and none of the add-ons, they will be lower still. And
since all their contents can be archived, permanently, in OAI-compliant
Eprint Archives, their accessibility in perpetuo is far better ensured
even if their speciality niche proves unsustainable after a few years
than is the accessibility in perpetuo of unsustainable paper-journal
start-ups (of which there are plenty, despite market research).

http://www.openarchives.org/
http://www.eprints.org/

So the market-research is a bit of a red herring -- as is the whole
question of start-ups. For it is the contents of the established
refereed journals that need to be freed online, now, not those of
future start-ups.

> Publishers don't always get it right - some new journals never reach
> profitability; they may be closed, merged with another journal, or
> continued because the publisher believes the journal is worthwhile and
> can afford to support it out of other sources of profit.

True, and all fine -- as long as the sought-after profitability for the
optional add-ons (on-paper, online, "value-added enhancement") is not
reached-for at the expense of free access to the peer-reviewed drafts;
in other words, as long as the essentials are not held hostage to the
options.

> I think the discussions on this list have tended to overlook this
> important - perhaps the most important - aspect of what journal publishers
> actually do.

I don't think they overlook it at all: They simply place it in its new
PostGutenberg context.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Arthur Smith]

Stevan, I never know when some of the things you say are actually what
you believe, or merely intended as the statements of a social scientist
trying to provoke controversy and discussion. I'm going to assume the
former, but suspect I've been dragged into this debate again via the
latter...

Stevan Harnad wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001, Sally Morris wrote:
> > [...] The journal is a kind of
> > 'envelope' in which readers can be reasonably confident of finding content
> > on a particular subject, possibly with a particular editorial slant or
> > article type, and of a certain general quality standard.
> [...]
>
> So whereas it is indeed the journal's quality tag, certifying the
> quality level of its contents, that authors and users need, the two
> critical, substantive components on which it is based -- the research
> report itself, and the referee reports on it -- are always provided
> gratis by researchers.  [...]

First of all, Sally Morris suggested a few other things than just
"quality" as important journal characteristics: subject, editorial
slant, and confinement to particular article types were also on her
list. Is there some reason these are not on yours? Is it perhaps that
evaluating according to these criteria is NOT necessarily provided free?
Furthermore, the "quality tag" for a manuscript, as we have explained
here repeatedly in the past, is not simply a matter of "processing"
referee reports, but involves subtle human judgments by the editorial
staff. Now you'll argue that we are an unusual and exceptional case in
actually paying our editors, but the process itself is complex and
requires even without the editorial effort, considerable human effort in
reading, tracking and correlating bits of correspondence that arrive
concerning a manuscript, spread at times over months or years.

That is why I find so offensive your claim that:
>
> [...] The peer
> review accounts for only 10% of the cost,

where did that number come from? From previous discussions I've seen you
always seem to cut in 1/2 or 1/3 the reasonable estimates from others
who are advocating open archives. Do you just pick these numbers out of
thin air? As we've repeatedly stated, our current peer review costs are
much higher than that, and not likely to be cut very significantly even
with all the fancy electronic tools becoming available.

Whether or not Open Archives actually succeed in forming a way of easily
getting at the literature free (I see there are now some 250,000
articles available) there is a fundamental need within the sciences for
the kind of forum a journal provides, an "envelope" as Sally Morris
suggests, where the new concepts and ideas of a particular researcher
are accepted as potential valuable contributions to the furthering of a
particular discipline. An author-controlled distribution system is
simply fundamentally incapable of providing that 3rd party acceptance
function. And commercial journal publishers (in particular Elsevier,
which continues its hegemonic acquisitions and 40% profit margins), even
in high energy physics which is basically 100% covered by the ArXiv,
seem to have very little to fear from all the noise in the corner.

That is why, if you really want to make radical changes, we HAVE to
address the question of the editorial functions in much more detail.
Which you refuse to do, referring to the sacrosanct "peer review"
system, whose invisible hand is vitally important, but to whom you
refuse to allocate sufficient funding to keep it going. There are other
models out there - think about the rating and review system at
Amazon.com, for example. Can the sciences adopt something along those
lines? That could cut costs... but if we don't look at other models
we'll all just keep doing what we're doing, and it's always going to
cost about the same, and libraries or institutions or whoever foots the
bill will just have to keep it up. And Open Archives will continue to be
basically irrelevant.

Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org)

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Sally Morris]

Apologies for the belated response.

I was particularly interested in what Stevan said about journals:  "We have
the established journal, with its reliable, known, quality-control "tag,"
its name, associated until now with articles of a known kind and quality."

I think this is an enormously important aspect of what journals (and those
who create and publish them) actually do.   The journal is a kind of
'envelope' in which readers can be reasonably confident of finding content
on a particular subject, possibly with a particular editorial slant or
article type, and of a certain general quality standard.

An established journal which performs this function doesn't just happen.
Publishers carry out extensive market research to discover whether an idea
for a new journal (which may have been suggested by an academic, or by a
member of the publisher's staff) has any viability in terms of potential
authors and readers.  If the idea looks viable, then considerable time,
effort and money will be invested in creating and launching the journal,
which is unlikely to bring in any profit/surplus whatsoever for 5 years or
more.

Publishers don't always get it right - some new journals never reach
profitability;  they may be closed, merged with another journal, or
continued because the publisher believes the journal is worthwhile and can
afford to support it out of other sources of profit.

I think the discussions on this list have tended to overlook this
important - perhaps the most important - aspect of what journal publishers
actually do.

Sally

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-...@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
www.learned-publishing.org

- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: 
Sent: 30 June 2001 18:59
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Bernard Lang wrote:
>
> > > bl> why should the quality-control service be provided by publishers ?
> > >
> > > Because they are providing it now. And there is nothing wrong with it
> > > (except the extras forcibly wrapped in with it).
> >
> > "Because they are providing it now" is not an answer. My point is that
> > we have to reanalyze the system from scratch, to see what would be the
> > basic rules in the Internet world.
>
> The basic rules for what?
>
> Peer review is medium-independent. It is merely experts (peers)
> giving feedback on the work of their fellow-experts (peers) to
> a meta-expert (editor) in order to determine what needs to be done to
> make it suitable for PUBLICATION (sic), which means,
> (medium-independently) CERTIFICATION as having met the quality standards
> of that particular journal.
>
> Harnad, S. (1998/2000) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature
> [online] (5 Nov. 1998)
> http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
> Longer version in Exploit Interactive 5 (2000):
> http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature2.html
>
>
http://documents.cern.ch/cgi-bin/txt2pre.sh?file=/archive/electronic/other/a
genda/a01193/a01193s4t7/URLsonPeerReview.htm&style=cds
>
> Peer review could benefit from some empirical study and application of
> the resulting findings (if any), but that has nothing at all to do with
> the issue at hand, which is the online freeing of the current refereed
> literature, such as it is, from the obsolete access barriers of
> subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/P).
>
> The benefits of freeing access to this literature online are
> self-evident and immediate.
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/science.htm
>
> The benefits (if any) of applying the results (if any) of empirical
> tests of ways of improving peer review await the performance of those
> tests, and whatever their outcomes turn out to be.
>
> The freeing of the current refereed literature should neither wait for
> nor depend on the eventual outcome of those tests. Indeed, it has
> nothing whatsoever to do with them, and in my opinion it is a big
> mistake to link them in any way.
>
> Let peer review experiments proceed at their own pace. But, meanwhile,
>  let us free this literature (through self-archiving) immediately.
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/nature4.htm
>
> > Refereeing is a function in itself, which is actually playing an
> > increasing role in many areas, largely because of the internet and its
> > dynamic interactive character, and in many guises. Typicall

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Peter Suber]

At 01:29 PM 6/28/2001 -0400, you wrote:

Dear Stevan,
While I am fully aware of the distinction between the "give-away" literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the scholarly
literature, as publishers have been digitizing back issues of journal
articles that were published before the arrival of electronic publishing and
before there were electronic rights for authors to give away. In other
words, could authors prevent publishers from digitizing the material that
they do not have the electronic rights to, just as some publishers have been
preventing authors from self-archiving? And what would this really mean, if
anything?

Leslie Chan

PUBLISHERS MUST SEEK AUTHORS' PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC REPRINTS
The Supreme Court ruled that freelance writers must be compensated
when publishers reprint their works in electronic form. The high
court sided with National Writers' Union President Jonathan
Tasini, ruling that transferring freelance authors' articles to
CD-ROMs and online databases creates totally new editions of
those articles--not revisions, as publishers had argued. American
University professor of law Peter A. Jaszi said, "This decision
seems to be a wonderful reaffirmation of the central importance
of the creative individual in our copyright system." However,
historians Ken Burns and Doris Kearns Goodwin said the ruling
will harm intellectual research if publishers remove freelance
articles from databases.
(Chronicle of Higher Education Online, 26 June 2001)


 Since the Tasini case was filed in 1993, major publishers have
protected their interests by asking for electronic publication rights
alongside traditional print publication rights.  So the Tasini victory only
belongs to authors who signed agreements with publishers before 1993 or
so.  If publishers in the future routinely demand and receive electronic
rights, then this could prevent self-archiving of postprints and other
forms of online distribution, or at least those forms of online
distribution that publishers believe would hurt their profits.

 Peter




--
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy
Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana, 47374
Email pet...@earlham.edu
Web http://www.earlham.edu/~peters

Editor, The Free Online Scholarship Newsletter
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Bernard Lang wrote:

> > bl> why should the quality-control service be provided by publishers ?
> >
> > Because they are providing it now. And there is nothing wrong with it
> > (except the extras forcibly wrapped in with it).
>
> "Because they are providing it now" is not an answer. My point is that
> we have to reanalyze the system from scratch, to see what would be the
> basic rules in the Internet world.

The basic rules for what?

Peer review is medium-independent. It is merely experts (peers)
giving feedback on the work of their fellow-experts (peers) to
a meta-expert (editor) in order to determine what needs to be done to
make it suitable for PUBLICATION (sic), which means,
(medium-independently) CERTIFICATION as having met the quality standards
of that particular journal.

Harnad, S. (1998/2000) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature
[online] (5 Nov. 1998)
http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
Longer version in Exploit Interactive 5 (2000):
http://www.exploit-lib.org/issue5/peer-review/
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/nature2.html

http://documents.cern.ch/cgi-bin/txt2pre.sh?file=/archive/electronic/other/agenda/a01193/a01193s4t7/URLsonPeerReview.htm&style=cds

Peer review could benefit from some empirical study and application of
the resulting findings (if any), but that has nothing at all to do with
the issue at hand, which is the online freeing of the current refereed
literature, such as it is, from the obsolete access barriers of
subscription/license/pay-per-view (S/L/P).

The benefits of freeing access to this literature online are
self-evident and immediate.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/science.htm

The benefits (if any) of applying the results (if any) of empirical
tests of ways of improving peer review await the performance of those
tests, and whatever their outcomes turn out to be.

The freeing of the current refereed literature should neither wait for
nor depend on the eventual outcome of those tests. Indeed, it has
nothing whatsoever to do with them, and in my opinion it is a big
mistake to link them in any way.

Let peer review experiments proceed at their own pace. But, meanwhile,
 let us free this literature (through self-archiving) immediately.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/nature4.htm

> Refereeing is a function in itself, which is actually playing an
> increasing role in many areas, largely because of the internet and its
> dynamic interactive character, and in many guises. Typically, any site
> that lists and criticizes products, web pages (for example to tell
> whether it is obscene or violent, and how much), people, books
> (amazon), or software components, is performing a refereeing task.

All fine, and welcome, but completely irrelevant to the subject matter
of this Forum, which is not products, web pages, people, books or
software, but the REFEREED JOURNAL LITERATURE (20,000+ journals
annually). And that literature is ALREADY refereed. It does not need
re-refereeing, or a new form of refereeing. It needs to be freed.

> A whole refereeing technology is currently being developed (using
> mathematical tools) because, of course, one has to assess the
> credibility of the refereeing services, either from an absolute (as
> much as that make sense) or from a personal viewpoint.

Splendid. And let that development and assessment proceed at its own
pace. But let it not be coupled IN ANY WAY with the much more urgent
task at hand, which is freeing the current refereed corpus, now.

> So quality-control, or relevance to a given profile, will be more and
> more a general form of service on the internet. Among other things it
> will be applicable to scientific or litterary resources (paper, data,
> ...). It will be open to competition ... and publishing houses are
> welcome to compete.

Bravo. I look forward to these developments. But there is no reason
whatsoever to make the freeing of the current refereed literature
contingent on them in any way at all.

> But I doubt it will be the source of very high income, especially for
> those who are not willing to pay the referees, since most of the
> infrastructure can be mechanized.

Paid refereeing is another untested variant on peer review. Let it be
tested (for bias, for quality, etc.) and we will be interested to hear
the results. But for now, the proposition is that the true costs of
implementing peer review today (when referees referee for free, just as
researchers write their papers for free, not for royalty) need to be
paid. They are the essentials. The rest (paper, PDF) are options, and
must be sold as such, rather than continuing to hold the former hostage
to the latter:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm

Will the income from this downsized form of publication be enough to
keep today's refereed journal publishers interested in remaining the
implementers of peer review? The answer is that for

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Bernard Lang]

I have two slides that summarize the technical view I develop below.
They are unfortunately only in French:

Publication Scientifique Traditionnelle
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papierg.htm

Publication Scientifique numérisée
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/ecrits/Exposes/Bruxelles-Egov/papieri.htm

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 11:29:25PM +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote:

> bl> why should the quality-control service be provided by publishers ?
> 
> Because they are providing it now. And there is nothing wrong with it
> (except the extras forcibly wrapped in with it).

"Because they are providing it now" is not an answer. My point is that
we have to reanalyze the system from scratch, to see what would be the
basic rules in the Internet world.

Referreeing is a function in itself, which is actually playing an
increasing role in many areas, largely because of the internet and its
dynamic interactive character, and in many guises. Typically, any site
that lists and criticizes products, web pages (for example to tell
whether it is obscene or violent, and how much), people, books
(amazon), or software componenets, is performing a refereeing task.

A whole referreeing technology is currently being developped (using
mathematical tools) because, of course, one as to assess the
credibility of the refereeing services, either from an absolute (as
much as that make sense) or from a personnal viewpoint.

So quality-control, or relevance to a given profile, will be more an
more a general form of service on the internet. Among other things it
will be applicable to scientific or litterary resources (paper, data,
...). It will be open to competition ... and publishing houses are
welcome to compete.

But I doubt it will be the source of very high income, especially for
those who are not willing to pay the referrees, since most of the
infrastructure can be mechanized.

> bl> My view is that they can provide it if they wish and manage to sell
> bl> it. But it can actually be provided by any individual, any
> bl> organization, who cares, for a fee or for free, with or without
> bl> competence.
> 
> Of course. But those who wish to free the refereed corpus would like to
> have it done with competence.

And the best way to ensure competence is to have open competition.

> bl> Of course, incompetent quality control will be known as such fast
> bl> enough. Since there can be multiple, competing, quality controls, the
> bl> better ones will emerge. And there can be quality control on the
> bl> quality control (like assessing the quality of journals). But in fact
> bl> a much more open and dynamic system that what we have now.
> 
> What's wrong with the quality control we have now? And wouldn't new
> quality-control methods have to be tested first? And what about the
> freeing of the 20,000 while we are waiting for the outcome of the
> test?

It does the job, more or less, with cliques, schools of thought, and
other human weaknesses.

But we all know that the current system is far from perfect. A
colleague of mine was barred from publication in a journal for nearly
ten years, because he had made public a scientific fraud by a member of
the editorial board. I once had to cover up for attempted unethical
publishing so as to protect the victim (who had agreed) from the risk
of further harassment by a powerful scientist.

Let's not kid ourselves, the system is adequate, but far from perfect.

> > > Then, if the day arrives when there is no longer any market for the
> > > OPTIONS (paid for by institutional S/L/P), then refereed-journal
> > > publishers can downsize to become providers of only the ESSENTIAL QC/C
> > > service, paid for by the author-institution out of 10% of its 100%
> > > annual windfall S/L/P savings.
> > 
> > why them ?
> 
> I don't understand? Why should it be the publishers who implement the
> quality control? Because they are the ones doing it already. And
> whoever does it is the "publisher".

this definition does not leave much room for discussion, does it ?

For me the publisher is the person who makes the work public. Not
necessarily the person who assess the value. The link between the two
is a Gutenberg era concept, due to economic constraints.

and still, I do not agree that the quality-control should be
centralized. Hence even your concept of publisher becomes somewhat
diluted.

> Why paid for by the
> author-institution? Because they would have the windfall savings of
> 100% out of which to pay the 10%. They are also the beneficiary (in
> research impact) of freed access.

I never said the service should not be paid ... I only meant that, as
far as I can tell, those who provide it, even now, are not what we call
publishers. And I doubt it is (or will be) that expensive
... but I may be wrong.

> I don't think journal publishers are villains,

no they are not ... well not any more than the silk workers in Lyon who
were being replaced by automatic weaving machines 2 centuries ago (I
guess 

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Bernard Lang wrote:

> why should the quality-control service be provided by publishers ?

Because they are providing it now. And there is nothing wrong with it
(except the extras forcibly wrapped in with it).

> My view is that they can provide it if they wish and manage to sell
> it. But it can actually be provided by any individual, any
> organization, who cares, for a fee or for free, with or without
> competence.

Of course. But those who wish to free the refereed corpus would like to
have it done with competence. We do not want to replace the refereed
literature with a Vanity Press.

> Of course, incompetent quality control will be known as such fast
> enough.  Since there can be multiple, competing, quality controls, the
> better ones will emerge.  And there can be quality control on the
> quality control (like assessing the quality of journals).  But in fact
> a much more open and dynamic system that what we have now.

What's wrong with the quality control we have now? And wouldn't new
quality-control methods have to be tested first? And what about the
freeing of the 20,000 while we are waiting for the outcome of such
tests?

> sh> Then, if the day arrives when there is no longer any market for the
> sh> OPTIONS (paid for by institutional S/L/P), then refereed-journal
> sh> publishers can downsize to become providers of only the ESSENTIAL QC/C
> sh> service, paid for by the author-institution out of 10% of its 100%
> sh> annual windfall S/L/P savings.
>
> why them ?

I don't understand: Why should it be the publishers who implement the
quality control? Because they are the ones doing it already. And
whoever does it is the "publisher". Why paid for by the
author-institution? Because they would have the windfall savings of
100% out of which to pay the 10% peer review cost. They are also the
beneficiary (in research impact) of freed access.

I don't think journal publishers are villains, and I don't think peer
review needs to be changed (urgently). What is urgent is freeing the
peer reviewed literature, such as it is, now. Peer review reform is
another matter, an empirical one, and the two should not be coupled in
any way.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):


http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

You may join the list at the site above.

Discussion can be posted to:

american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Bernard Lang]

On Fri, Jun 29, 2001 at 06:03:29PM +0100, Stevan Harnad wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, Bernard Lang wrote:
>
> > publishers have outlived their economic usefulness, at least where
> > publication of scientific papers [is]... concerned.  Hence there is no
> > reason any money should be spent on them.
>
> I don't think this is correct.

I stand by my statement, see below.

> First of all, we are not speaking of all manner of publishing, by any
> means. Just the very minoritarian (but not insignificant) annual corpus
> of about 20,000 refereed journals.

which I sumarily took into account by restricting to "publication of
scientific papers" ... does that exceed the corpus you indicate ?

> Second, even for that corpus, it is not the case that its publishers
> have "outlived their economic usefulness." The publishers of these
> 20,000 refereed journals have two functions. They provide (1) a SERVICE
> (quality-control/certification [QC/C], consisting mainly of the
> implementation of peer review) and (2) a PRODUCT (the on-paper or
> on-line published draft).

agreed

> What has outlived its economic usefulness is the forcible COUPLING of
> these two functions, providing the quality-control service and the text
> product.

agreed

> The service is an ESSENTIAL one (if we are to have a REFEREED corpus at
> all). The product is merely an OPTION.

and why should the quality-control service be provided by publishers ?

My view is that they can provide it if they wish and manage to sell
it.  But it can actually be provided by any individual, any
organization, who cares, for a fee or for free, with or without
competence.
   Of course, incompetent quality control will be known as such fast
enough.  Since there can be multiple, competing, quality controls, the
better ones will emerge.  And there can be quality control on the
quality control (like assessing the quality of journals).  But in fact
a much more open and dynamic system that what we have now.

> The two -- the essentials and the options -- must be decoupled.
>
> Publishers are unlikely to decouple them voluntarily; and in any case,
> waiting around for publishers to do that is a waste of precious time
> (and of potential research impact for all those papers that are otherwise
> inaccessible to so many of their potential users, lodged behind the
> financial firewalls of subscription/license/pay-per-view: S/L/P).

probably, but not relevant to my point

.

> Then, if the day arrives when there is no longer any market for the
> OPTIONS (paid for by institutional S/L/P), then refereed-journal
> publishers can downsize to become providers of only the ESSENTIAL QC/C
> service, paid for by the author-institution out of 10% of its 100%
> annual windfall S/L/P savings.

why them ?

Bernard Lang


--
 Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
   SIGNEZhttp://petition.eurolinux.org/SIGN

bernard.l...@inria.fr ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Bernard Lang]

  What libraries are spending is not the issue, nor whether they are
well managed.

  The issue is that publishers have outlived their economic
usefulness, at least where publication of scientific papers (how
quaint!) is concerned.
  Hence there is no reason any money should be spent on them.

   PERIOD

Bernard Lang


On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 04:20:39PM -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
> on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 Stevan Harnad  wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, Albert Henderson's suggestions are so repetitive and
> > predictable that they can be responded to by number. These responses
> > are themselves equally predictable (and a fortiori, repetitive), but
> > they differ from the points to which they are responses in that they
> > take the point into account, and advance the analysis one step further,
> > whereas alas Albert simply takes a step back every time, and simply
> > reiterates, without processing or reflecting on the substantive
> > responses he has received repeatedly -- indeed, without giving any sign
> > of their having entered his sensorium at all.
> >
> > Two algorithms will generate just about every point Albert keeps
> > making in this Forum (and the points both keep generating are just
> > plain incorrect):
> >
> > (1) The serials crisis is an artifact of (conspiratorial)
> > underfunding of libraries, and would be solved if this underfunding
> > were terminated. [Fallacy: No conspiracy; no underfunding; no funds
> > available or deliberately withheld.]
>
> Don't take my word for the underfunding of libraries.
> There is considerable literature documenting the underfunding
> of libraries after 1970: The Fry-White study (1975), National
> Enquiry on Scholarly Communication (1979); Richard Talbot (1984),
> ARL Serials Prices Project (1989); A M Cummings et al (1992);
> Okerson & Stubbs (1992) -- just to cite a few studies not
> including my own. [I will gladly provide full cites to anyone
> wishing for a depressing afternoon.]
>
> My own comparison of declining library spending with
> increased profitability -- well documented statistically
> -- suggests funds have been deliberately withheld. [I will
> gladly share my sources -- all published.]
>
> Who said "conspiracy?"  Please give us your source. If
> I were to choose a word, it would be "culture." Ironically,
> the "culture" of university administrators places a higher
> value on hoarding financial assets than it does on library
> collections. Here is a "culture," like the management
> culture pre-workers' compensation and fire safety laws, that
> relies on workers to take care of themselves. University
> managers are failing to meet their obligation to excellence
> in research and education.
>
>
> (2) Nothing relevant has changed since the Gutenberg [print on-paper
> dissemination] Era. [Fallacy: everything has changed; authors can now
> disseminate their REFEREED {sic} research for free for all, online, by
> self-archiving {sic}]
>
> Technology gave us another new tool a decade ago. No revolution
> need follow. The essentials of copyright and the social
> construction of science have not toppled. Nor will they.
>
> [snip]
>
> Have a nice weekend.
>
> Albert Henderson
> Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
> <70244.1...@compuserve.com>
>
> .
> .
> .

--
 Non aux Brevets Logiciels  -  No to Software Patents
   SIGNEZhttp://petition.eurolinux.org/SIGN

bernard.l...@inria.fr ,_  /\o\o/Tel  +33 1 3963 5644
http://pauillac.inria.fr/~lang/  ^  Fax  +33 1 3963 5469
INRIA / B.P. 105 / 78153 Le Chesnay CEDEX / France
 Je n'exprime que mon opinion - I express only my opinion
 CAGED BEHIND WINDOWS or FREE WITH LINUX

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Charles Oppenheim]

>Dear Stevan,
>While I am fully aware of the distinction between the "give-away" literature
>and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
>Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the scholarly
>literature, as publishers have been digitizing back issues of journal
>articles that were published before the arrival of electronic publishing and
>before there were electronic rights for authors to give away. In other
>words, could authors prevent publishers from digitizing the material that
>they do not have the electronic rights to, just as some publishers have been
>preventing authors from self-archiving? And what would this really mean, if
>anything?
>
>Leslie Chan


I think Leslie's analysis is reasonable, though it must be stressed that
this ruling only applies to the USA, and there is no reason to think the
precedent set by the Supreme Court would necessarily be set in other
countries.  The decision certainly strengthens the hand of authors in their
negotiations with publishers.

Professor Charles Oppenheim
Dept of Information Science
Loughborough University
Loughborough
Leics LE11 3TU

Tel 01509-223065
Fax 01509-223053

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[David Goodman]

 Quite apart from economic concerns, I think that the
proposals of Harnad et al will give better and faster
information service. Why else
would those researchers and students in fields where they exist
use them ten times as much as the journals in libraries such as ours where
they are both equally available?

Do you really think it fair to characterize me and those who share my
views as "shills"?


David Goodman, Princeton University Biology Library
dgood...@princeton.edu609-258-3235

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:

> As Thosten Veblen wrote of university managers, "The last
> resort of the apologists for these more sordid endeavours
> is the plea that only by this means can the ulterior ends
> of a civilization of intelligence be served. The argument
> may fairly be paraphrased to the effect that in order to
> serve God in the end, we must all be ready to serve the
> Devil in the meantime." [The Higher Learning in America.
> Originally published 1918 by B. W. Huebsch, Inc. Reprinted
> 1993 by Transaction p. 9]
>
> If libraries and librarians have been economically abused
> it has been at the hands of university managers far more
> than publishers. The aim of this forum, it seems clear to
> me (whether Harnad et al. are ready to admit it) is to end
> spending on libraries as soon as author-archiving can be
> offered as a substitute for "ownership." Like many described
> by Nicholson Baker in DOUBLE FOLD, well intentioned librarians
> and others have turned into shills for every alternative to
> the process of formal dissemination of research.
>
> Where is the passionate advocacy in support of fairer
> budgets for libraries, rather than justifying financial
> surpluses that serve no educational purpose?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Albert Henderson
> <70244.1...@compuserve.com>
>
> -Forwarded Message-
>
> From:   September 1998 American Scientist Forum, 
> INTERNET:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> To: [unknown], 
> INTERNET:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
>
> Date:   6/27/2001 11:48 AM
>
> Re: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
>
>
> At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
> >on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland  wrote:
> >
> >> More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
> >> course through the research communication process", I suggest that
> >> Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
> >> Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
> >> Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
> >> scholarly publishing activities.  These Foundations would then support
> >> research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
> >> usual way by academics submitting grant proposals.  This would bring the
> >> companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
> >> the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
> >> journal prices.
> >
> >There is no need for a new financial hoard. Every major
> >university already has accumulated profits and gifts that
> >serve no educational purpose. THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
> >just published a lengthy description of Harvard's $19 billion,
> >by Johanna Berkman (June 24 2001 p. 38-41). Read and weep.
> >If Harvard's collection development had kept pace with the
> >published output of science after 1940, its library would
> >hold twice as many volumes as it does. Its endowment (shudder!)
> >might possible have a few less $billion.
> >
> >Best wishes,
> >
> >Albert Henderson
> ><70244.1...@compuserve.com>
>
> It is clear that Albert Henderson cannot be shaken in his belief that
> universities are immensely wealthy institutions that perversely refuse to
> spend their money on adequate library resources.  This picture is not
> recognisable to us in the UK, nor, I suspect, to most academics in state
> univesties in the USA.  My own university is a reasonably well-regarded
> medium-sized UK university.  Its annual turnover (not profit, turnover!) is
> around 120 million pounds; its budgeted surplus (required for fiscal
> prudence by our University Council, in order to increase cash reserves,
> following a period of building construction) is about 2 million pounds per
> year.  The cash reserves are about 20 million pounds (i.e. equivalent

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Mark Doyle]

Greetings,

On Thursday, June 28, 2001, at 01:29 PM, Leslie Chan wrote:


While I am fully aware of the distinction between the "give-away"
literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the
scholarly
literature, as publishers have been digitizing back issues of journal
articles that were published before the arrival of electronic
publishing and
before there were electronic rights for authors to give away. In other
words, could authors prevent publishers from digitizing the material
that
they do not have the electronic rights to, just as some publishers have
been
preventing authors from self-archiving? And what would this really
mean, if
anything?


This is the bottom line argument for why the APS insists on taking
copyright and giving authors back the rights they want rather than
the other way around.  Copyright law is well-established
internationally. Licenses to publish are not. In fact open
ended licenses (such as the ability to reuse the material in any
future format/product) are unenforceable in some countries (Germany
comes to mind). Without holding copyright, it would have been much
more difficult, if not impossible, for the APS to create our PROLA
archive covering all material back to 1893.

The issues isn't really who holds copyright - that is somewhat of
a red-herring.  The issue is what rights does an author have to do
what they wish with their own work. The APS copyright transfer
allows authors to retain the rights they naturally want without
impeding us to do what we need to do to ensure wide dissemination
and access.

Cheers,
Mark

Mark Doyle
Manager, Product Development
The American Physical Society

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 Stevan Harnad  wrote:
 
> Unfortunately, Albert Henderson's suggestions are so repetitive and
> predictable that they can be responded to by number. These responses
> are themselves equally predictable (and a fortiori, repetitive), but
> they differ from the points to which they are responses in that they
> take the point into account, and advance the analysis one step further,
> whereas alas Albert simply takes a step back every time, and simply
> reiterates, without processing or reflecting on the substantive
> responses he has received repeatedly -- indeed, without giving any sign
> of their having entered his sensorium at all.
> 
> Two algorithms will generate just about every point Albert keeps
> making in this Forum (and the points both keep generating are just
> plain incorrect):
> 
> (1) The serials crisis is an artifact of (conspiratorial)
> underfunding of libraries, and would be solved if this underfunding
> were terminated. [Fallacy: No conspiracy; no underfunding; no funds
> available or deliberately withheld.]

Don't take my word for the underfunding of libraries. 
There is considerable literature documenting the underfunding 
of libraries after 1970: The Fry-White study (1975), National 
Enquiry on Scholarly Communication (1979); Richard Talbot (1984), 
ARL Serials Prices Project (1989); A M Cummings et al (1992); 
Okerson & Stubbs (1992) -- just to cite a few studies not 
including my own. [I will gladly provide full cites to anyone 
wishing for a depressing afternoon.]

My own comparison of declining library spending with
increased profitability -- well documented statistically
-- suggests funds have been deliberately withheld. [I will
gladly share my sources -- all published.]

Who said "conspiracy?"  Please give us your source. If
I were to choose a word, it would be "culture." Ironically,
the "culture" of university administrators places a higher
value on hoarding financial assets than it does on library
collections. Here is a "culture," like the management
culture pre-workers' compensation and fire safety laws, that 
relies on workers to take care of themselves. University
managers are failing to meet their obligation to excellence 
in research and education.


(2) Nothing relevant has changed since the Gutenberg [print on-paper
dissemination] Era. [Fallacy: everything has changed; authors can now
disseminate their REFEREED {sic} research for free for all, online, by
self-archiving {sic}]

Technology gave us another new tool a decade ago. No revolution
need follow. The essentials of copyright and the social 
construction of science have not toppled. Nor will they.

[snip]

Have a nice weekend.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

.
.
.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

Unfortunately, Albert Henderson's suggestions are so repetitive and
predictable that they can be responded to by number. These responses
are themselves equally predictable (and a fortiori, repetitive), but
they differ from the points to which they are responses in that they
take the point into account, and advance the analysis one step further,
whereas alas Albert simply takes a step back every time, and simply
reiterates, without processing or reflecting on the substantive
responses he has received repeatedly -- indeed, without giving any sign
of their having entered his sensorium at all.

Two algorithms will generate just about every point Albert keeps
making in this Forum (and the points both keep generating are just
plain incorrect):

(1) The serials crisis is an artifact of (conspiratorial)
underfunding of libraries, and would be solved if this underfunding
were terminated. [Fallacy: No conspiracy; no underfunding; no funds
available or deliberately withheld.]

(2) Nothing relevant has changed since the Gutenberg [print on-paper
dissemination] Era. [Fallacy: everything has changed; authors can now
disseminate their REFEREED {sic} research for free for all, online, by
self-archiving {sic}]

On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:

> Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
> fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to
> recognize the economic exchanges that course through
> the research communication process. Publishers exchange
> recognition and dissemination services for the copyrights
> of the articles they publish. Every economist I know agrees.

In the PostGutenberg Galaxy, that "service" is no longer needed; it is
now merely an option. Dissemination is available by other means. The
only essential service is peer review (implementation), which only
accounts for about 10% of the dollars exchanged, and could easily be paid
up-front out of the 100% annual windfall savings if the freeing of this
(refereed, published) literature on-line by author/institution
self-archiving reduces institutional subscription/license expenditure
and publisher subscription/license revenue sufficiently to make it
necessary.

In other words, Albert's invariant notion that it is a law of nature
that the economic exchange is all dissemination rights ceded in
exchange for dissemination itself is completely obsolete. It would be
a welcome relief and surprise if Albert were ever to show the
slightest sign of having processed this basic PostGutenberg datum...

Dissemination and peer review need no longer be coupled.

> By the same token, the value of self-publishing is of lesser
> value because it is unselective and offers little archival
> promise in spite of the mis-use of the word by Harnad and
> Gisparg.

It has never been self-publishing! It is the self-archiving of
refereed, published research.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1.4

On the lexical quibbles about the term, nolo contendere.

Now can we please stop wasting time on these antedeluvian irrelevancies
and return to the subject matter of this Forum, which is the freeing of
the refereed literature online? There are several substantive discussion
threads in progress and no point in continuing to beat these dead horses
in 2001.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):


http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

You may join the list at the site above.

Discussion can be posted to:

american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Leslie Chan]

Dear Stevan,
While I am fully aware of the distinction between the "give-away" literature
and the writing-for-fee literature, I can't help but wonder if the US
Supreme Court ruling (see below) will have implications for the scholarly
literature, as publishers have been digitizing back issues of journal
articles that were published before the arrival of electronic publishing and
before there were electronic rights for authors to give away. In other
words, could authors prevent publishers from digitizing the material that
they do not have the electronic rights to, just as some publishers have been
preventing authors from self-archiving? And what would this really mean, if
anything?

Leslie Chan



PUBLISHERS MUST SEEK AUTHORS' PERMISSION FOR ELECTRONIC REPRINTS
The Supreme Court ruled that freelance writers must be compensated
when publishers reprint their works in electronic form. The high
court sided with National Writers' Union President Jonathan
Tasini, ruling that transferring freelance authors' articles to
CD-ROMs and online databases creates totally new editions of
those articles--not revisions, as publishers had argued. American
University professor of law Peter A. Jaszi said, "This decision
seems to be a wonderful reaffirmation of the central importance
of the creative individual in our copyright system." However,
historians Ken Burns and Doris Kearns Goodwin said the ruling
will harm intellectual research if publishers remove freelance
articles from databases.
(Chronicle of Higher Education Online, 26 June 2001)

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Michael Somers]

And what Mr. Henderson fails to describe is that most of the endowments at 
Harvard are controlled by the various colleges with the university.  For 
instance, the College of Arts and Science controls its own endowment funds, 
which total more than $8 billion US.  Much of the endowment is used to support 
chairs, faculty appointments, and specific programs earmarked by the initial 
gift.  There are general endowment funds controlled by the university 
president, but the president does not control all of the monies.  Finally, 
there is a private company that invests most of the endowment monies and pays 
its investors millions in bonuses when the return on the money if positive.

Mike Somers


Michael A. Somers
Assistant Dean for Library Services
Cunningham Memorial Library
Indiana State University
650 Sycamore St.
Terre Haute, IN 47809 

libs...@isugw.indstate.edu
812.237.3700
812.237.2591 (office)
812.237.3376 (fax)

>>> j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk 06/27/01 08:08AM >>>
At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
>on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland  wrote:
>
>> More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
>> course through the research communication process", I suggest that
>> Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
>> Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
>> Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
>> scholarly publishing activities.  These Foundations would then support
>> research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
>> usual way by academics submitting grant proposals.  This would bring the
>> companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
>> the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
>> journal prices.
>
>There is no need for a new financial hoard. Every major
>university already has accumulated profits and gifts that
>serve no educational purpose. THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
>just published a lengthy description of Harvard's $19 billion,
>by Johanna Berkman (June 24 2001 p. 38-41). Read and weep.
>If Harvard's collection development had kept pace with the
>published output of science after 1940, its library would
>hold twice as many volumes as it does. Its endowment (shudder!)
>might possible have a few less $billion.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Albert Henderson
><70244.1...@compuserve.com>

It is clear that Albert Henderson cannot be shaken in his belief that
universities are immensely wealthy institutions that perversely refuse to
spend their money on adequate library resources.  This picture is not
recognisable to us in the UK, nor, I suspect, to most academics in state
univesties in the USA.  My own university is a reasonably well-regarded
medium-sized UK university.  Its annual turnover (not profit, turnover!) is
around 120 million pounds; its budgeted surplus (required for fiscal
prudence by our University Council, in order to increase cash reserves,
following a period of building construction) is about 2 million pounds per
year.  The cash reserves are about 20 million pounds (i.e. equivalent to
about two months' routine expenditures).  All the rest of the university's
assets are real estate (its campus and the buidings on it) and the
buildings' contents, including of course the library's collection.

Harvard must be one of the wealthiest universities in the world -- hardly a
typical one, anyway.  But remember what "endowment" means.  These are funds
that are held as capital, and the university spends the interest on that
capital on its running expenses.  At current interest rates that is still
probably 1 billion dollars a year or so, if the figure of 19 billion
dollars capital is correct.  A lot of money; but they do have to pay their
faculty salaries, the running costs of all their buildings, scholarships
for students, and everything else needed to run one of the world's
highest-quality universities.

And however rich or poor you are, that is not a good reason for allowing
someone else to rip you off!

Fytton Rowland.

**
Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer,
Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and
Programme Tutor for Publishing with English,
Department of Information Science,
Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK.

Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039   Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
E-mail: j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk 
http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/frowland.html 
**

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on Tue, 26 Jun 2001 Christopher D. Green  wrote:

> Albert Henderson wrote:
> 
> > Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
> > fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to
> > recognize the economic exchanges that course through
> > the research communication process. Publishers exchange
> > recognition and dissemination services for the copyrights
> > of the articles they publish. Every economist I know agrees.
> 
> Problem is, the *publisher* confers nothing of the kind. The "extra value" if
> provided by the scholars who serve as editors, reviewers, etc., and just like 
> the
> authors, they typically do so at no cost to the pubisher. Nice work if you 
> can get
> it.

More than nice, vital. The Indian Academay of Sciences started its own 
physics journal, PRAMANA, because European and American journals did 
not sufficiently engage Indian scientists in peer review. I have no 
doubt that the need to participate was a factor in the creation of 
PHYSICAL REVIEW in 1893 (funded by Macmillan) when the U.S. was far 
from the mainstream of science and there was no American Physical 
Society. I also have no doubt that the development of the American 
Physical Society was hastened by the willingness of Macmillan to 
provide financial and organizational support for the new journal.

Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

As Thosten Veblen wrote of university managers, "The last 
resort of the apologists for these more sordid endeavours 
is the plea that only by this means can the ulterior ends 
of a civilization of intelligence be served. The argument 
may fairly be paraphrased to the effect that in order to 
serve God in the end, we must all be ready to serve the 
Devil in the meantime." [The Higher Learning in America. 
Originally published 1918 by B. W. Huebsch, Inc. Reprinted 
1993 by Transaction p. 9] 

If libraries and librarians have been economically abused
it has been at the hands of university managers far more 
than publishers. The aim of this forum, it seems clear to 
me (whether Harnad et al. are ready to admit it) is to end
spending on libraries as soon as author-archiving can be
offered as a substitute for "ownership." Like many described 
by Nicholson Baker in DOUBLE FOLD, well intentioned librarians
and others have turned into shills for every alternative to
the process of formal dissemination of research.

Where is the passionate advocacy in support of fairer 
budgets for libraries, rather than justifying financial 
surpluses that serve no educational purpose?

Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

-Forwarded Message-

From:   September 1998 American Scientist Forum, 
INTERNET:september98-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
To: [unknown], 
INTERNET:american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org

List-Post: goal@eprints.org
List-Post: goal@eprints.org
Date:   6/27/2001 11:48 AM

RE: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

 
At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
>on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland  wrote:
>
>> More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
>> course through the research communication process", I suggest that
>> Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
>> Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
>> Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
>> scholarly publishing activities.  These Foundations would then support
>> research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
>> usual way by academics submitting grant proposals.  This would bring the
>> companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
>> the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
>> journal prices.
>
>There is no need for a new financial hoard. Every major
>university already has accumulated profits and gifts that
>serve no educational purpose. THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
>just published a lengthy description of Harvard's $19 billion,
>by Johanna Berkman (June 24 2001 p. 38-41). Read and weep.
>If Harvard's collection development had kept pace with the
>published output of science after 1940, its library would
>hold twice as many volumes as it does. Its endowment (shudder!)
>might possible have a few less $billion.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Albert Henderson
><70244.1...@compuserve.com>

It is clear that Albert Henderson cannot be shaken in his belief that
universities are immensely wealthy institutions that perversely refuse to
spend their money on adequate library resources.  This picture is not
recognisable to us in the UK, nor, I suspect, to most academics in state
univesties in the USA.  My own university is a reasonably well-regarded
medium-sized UK university.  Its annual turnover (not profit, turnover!) is
around 120 million pounds; its budgeted surplus (required for fiscal
prudence by our University Council, in order to increase cash reserves,
following a period of building construction) is about 2 million pounds per
year.  The cash reserves are about 20 million pounds (i.e. equivalent to
about two months' routine expenditures).  All the rest of the university's
assets are real estate (its campus and the buidings on it) and the
buildings' contents, including of course the library's collection.

Harvard must be one of the wealthiest universities in the world -- hardly a
typical one, anyway.  But remember what "endowment" means.  These are funds
that are held as capital, and the university spends the interest on that
capital on its running expenses.  At current interest rates that is still
probably 1 billion dollars a year or so, if the figure of 19 billion
dollars capital is correct.  A lot of money; but they do have to pay their
faculty salaries, the running costs of all their buildings, scholarships
for students, and everything else needed to run one of the world's
highest-quality universities.

And however rich

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Fytton Rowland]

At 01:19 PM 6/26/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
>on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland  wrote:
>
>> More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
>> course through the research communication process", I suggest that
>> Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
>> Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
>> Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
>> scholarly publishing activities.  These Foundations would then support
>> research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
>> usual way by academics submitting grant proposals.  This would bring the
>> companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
>> the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
>> journal prices.
>
>There is no need for a new financial hoard. Every major
>university already has accumulated profits and gifts that
>serve no educational purpose. THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE
>just published a lengthy description of Harvard's $19 billion,
>by Johanna Berkman (June 24 2001 p. 38-41). Read and weep.
>If Harvard's collection development had kept pace with the
>published output of science after 1940, its library would
>hold twice as many volumes as it does. Its endowment (shudder!)
>might possible have a few less $billion.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Albert Henderson
><70244.1...@compuserve.com>

It is clear that Albert Henderson cannot be shaken in his belief that
universities are immensely wealthy institutions that perversely refuse to
spend their money on adequate library resources.  This picture is not
recognisable to us in the UK, nor, I suspect, to most academics in state
univesties in the USA.  My own university is a reasonably well-regarded
medium-sized UK university.  Its annual turnover (not profit, turnover!) is
around 120 million pounds; its budgeted surplus (required for fiscal
prudence by our University Council, in order to increase cash reserves,
following a period of building construction) is about 2 million pounds per
year.  The cash reserves are about 20 million pounds (i.e. equivalent to
about two months' routine expenditures).  All the rest of the university's
assets are real estate (its campus and the buidings on it) and the
buildings' contents, including of course the library's collection.

Harvard must be one of the wealthiest universities in the world -- hardly a
typical one, anyway.  But remember what "endowment" means.  These are funds
that are held as capital, and the university spends the interest on that
capital on its running expenses.  At current interest rates that is still
probably 1 billion dollars a year or so, if the figure of 19 billion
dollars capital is correct.  A lot of money; but they do have to pay their
faculty salaries, the running costs of all their buildings, scholarships
for students, and everything else needed to run one of the world's
highest-quality universities.

And however rich or poor you are, that is not a good reason for allowing
someone else to rip you off!

Fytton Rowland.

**
Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer,
Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and
Programme Tutor for Publishing with English,
Department of Information Science,
Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK.

Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039   Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
E-mail: j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk
http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/frowland.html
**

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on 26 Jun 2001 Fytton Rowland  wrote:

> More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
> course through the research communication process", I suggest that
> Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
> Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
> Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
> scholarly publishing activities.  These Foundations would then support
> research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
> usual way by academics submitting grant proposals.  This would bring the
> companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
> the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
> journal prices.

There is no need for a new financial hoard. Every major
university already has accumulated profits and gifts that 
serve no educational purpose. THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE 
just published a lengthy description of Harvard's $19 billion, 
by Johanna Berkman (June 24 2001 p. 38-41). Read and weep. 
If Harvard's collection development had kept pace with the 
published output of science after 1940, its library would 
hold twice as many volumes as it does. Its endowment (shudder!)
might possible have a few less $billion.

Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Fytton Rowland]

At 09:40 PM 6/25/01 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote:
>on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story  wrote:
>
>> As soon as someone suggests " you know it really is a crazy system under
>> which commercial publishers acquire, at no cost, all intellectual property
>> rights to the work of authors which is produced by the often-unpaid labour
>> of academics (because they love their subject area) and by the money of
>> taxpayers (academic salaries, fellowships, libraries, prior education,
etc.)
>> and student tuition fees" you get accused of taking "clearly an
anti-library
>> anti-science position."
>>
>> Not at all clear to me, Albert, just as it was not clear to a lot of people
>> some centuries that the earth was flat just because people said it was.
>
>Also not clear is that saying that unpaid authors give
>away their copyrights doesn't make it true.
>
>Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
>fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to
>recognize the economic exchanges that course through
>the research communication process. Publishers exchange
>recognition and dissemination services for the copyrights
>of the articles they publish. Every economist I know agrees.

The recognition comes from the journal's editorial board and referees --
themselves academics and researchers -- who maintain the high standards of
the journal, not from the publishing company, who provide administration of
the quality-control process and (admittedly) dissemination.  Referees, like
authors, are usually unpaid; academic editors usually receive a modest
honorarium.  The Internet provides a much cheaper and quicker medium for
dissemination than paper did.  But libraries pay for these journals (paper
and electronic versions) in large amounts of hard cash. which in turn lead
to large profits, even to the not-for-profit sector of scholalrly publishing.

I therefore make two suggestions -- one frivolous, one serious.  If the
publishers wish to maintain the argument advanced by Henderson above, then
they should give their journals free of charge to the libraries in return
for "recognition" -- the library could put up a large sign by the issue
desk (and on its website) saying "The following high-quality journals taken
here are published by the admirable Reed Elsevier group".

More seriously, taking Henderson's point about "economic exchanges that
course through the research communication process", I suggest that
Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, etc., and also the American Chemical
Society and other large "not-for-profit" publishers, should each set up a
Foundation into which the put a large proportion of the profits from their
scholarly publishing activities.  These Foundations would then support
research in a wide variety of academic disciplines, competed for in the
usual way by academics submitting grant proposals.  This would bring the
companies concerned well-deserved "recognition", and would also return to
the academic community some of the hard cash taken out of it by exorbitant
journal prices.

Fytton Rowland.

>By the same token, the value of self-publishing is of lesser
>value because it is unselective and offers little archival
>promise in spite of the mis-use of the word by Harnad and
>Gisparg.
>
>Thanks for helping me clear this up.
>
>Albert Henderson
><70244.1...@compuserve.com>

**
Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer,
Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and
Programme Tutor for Publishing with English,
Department of Information Science,
Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK.

Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039   Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
E-mail: j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk
http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/frowland.html
**

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Christopher D. Green]

Albert Henderson wrote:

> Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
> fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to
> recognize the economic exchanges that course through
> the research communication process. Publishers exchange
> recognition and dissemination services for the copyrights
> of the articles they publish. Every economist I know agrees.

Problem is, the *publisher* confers nothing of the kind. The "extra value" if
provided by the scholars who serve as editors, reviewers, etc., and just like 
the
authors, they typically do so at no cost to the pubisher. Nice work if you can 
get
it.
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3

e-mail: chri...@yorku.ca
phone:  416-736-5115 ext. 66164
fax:416-736-5814
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story  wrote:
 
> As soon as someone suggests " you know it really is a crazy system under
> which commercial publishers acquire, at no cost, all intellectual property
> rights to the work of authors which is produced by the often-unpaid labour
> of academics (because they love their subject area) and by the money of
> taxpayers (academic salaries, fellowships, libraries, prior education, etc.)
> and student tuition fees" you get accused of taking "clearly an anti-library
> anti-science position."
> 
> Not at all clear to me, Albert, just as it was not clear to a lot of people
> some centuries that the earth was flat just because people said it was.

Also not clear is that saying that unpaid authors give 
away their copyrights doesn't make it true. 

Money is not the only token of value. One of the key
fallacies that burdens this forum is the failure to 
recognize the economic exchanges that course through 
the research communication process. Publishers exchange 
recognition and dissemination services for the copyrights 
of the articles they publish. Every economist I know agrees.

By the same token, the value of self-publishing is of lesser
value because it is unselective and offers little archival
promise in spite of the mis-use of the word by Harnad and
Gisparg.

Thanks for helping me clear this up.

Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Alan Story wrote:

> Sally Morris' note raised the issue of copyright and journals on your list.
> And so I responded with a copyright and journals-related response.
> If you do not want copyight-related posts, then don't put them on the first
> place.

Copyright and journals is entirely relevant to this Forum, whose topic
is the freeing of the refereed research literature online. (I am not
sure what made you think it was not relevant.)

> And no lectures, thank you.

Again, I am not sure what you mean here. I am the moderator of the
Forum, but I am also a contributor. As contributor, I express my
viewpoint, just as other contributors express theirs. Are you
construing a differing viewpoint as a lecture? (Is that then
reciprocal?)

By way of clarification: There is a "fair use" issue for text book
materials, for teaching purposes. That is royalty-based material, not
author give-away, as refereed research is. That is why it is so
important not to conflate the two.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5

I would be interested to hear your viewpoint about that.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Sally Morris]

Perhaps it would be worth having a look at the ALPSP licence before
dismissing it so readily - broad re-use rights, including educational use
and electronic posting, are retained by the author (I actually think this is
much more important than whose name appears on the copyright line)

Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-...@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
www.learned-publishing.org

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, [Anonymous] wrote:

> I do not quite agree with you on the assertion that eprint services and
> personal web pages are the same; the former have the distinction of being
> maintained by some organisation which intends / commits to perpetuity and
> may add additional useful indexing metadata

They are the same, LEGALLY speaking -- no legal distinction, with
respect to copyright, can be based on the degree to which one is
more/less "public" than the other.

You are quite right, however, that there are PRACTICAL differences
between them (but those do not affect the copyright question under
discussion here, which is a legal question, about the wording for
copyright transfer agreements).

There is a HUGE difference between an author's possibly here-today/
gone-tomorrow home-page and an abiding institution's robust Eprint
Archives, backed by a preservation commitment from its library and
administration. That is why we are now putting so much emphasis on the
institutional rather than the individual solution to the problem of
freeing the refereed research literature online.

But the impossibility of making a legal distinction here is very
important anyway, for the following reason:

The biggest retardant on progress is the rate at which refereed
research CONTENT is going online -- whether in institutional eprint
archives or authors' home-pages. What is most important and most urgent
at this time is to get that content up there. Once it is up there,
there will be many, many ways to make it more secure and permanent. (We
at Southampton, for example, and others, are designing software that
will automatically copy papers from authors' arbitrary home-page
archives to OAI-compliant Eprint Archives.)

So needless worries about permanence and preservation should not be
allowed to hold back content: Go ahead and archive it, even in your
author's home-page, now, if need be (google and researchindex will find
it for now). And tomorrow will take care of itself (with the
help of those committed to both the Open Archives Initiative and the
Self-Archiving Initiative: (http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue28/)


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

As soon as someone suggests " you know it really is a crazy system under
which commercial publishers acquire, at no cost, all intellectual property
rights to the work of authors which is produced by the often-unpaid labour
of academics (because they love their subject area) and by the money of
taxpayers (academic salaries, fellowships, libraries, prior education, etc.)
and student tuition fees" you get accused of taking "clearly an anti-library
anti-science position."

Not at all clear to me, Albert, just as it was not clear to a lot of people
some centuries that the earth was flat just because people said it was.

Alan Story
Kent Law School



 Original Message -
From: "Albert Henderson" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story  wrote:

> The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be
> called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."
>
> Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
> publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be
underlined)
> ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
> rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.
>
> Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with
Harnad's
> "subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any "open
> archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
> students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
> educational use of that article.
>
> In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available
with
> most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era.
>
> Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy
> publication right. And not a tad more.

Clearly an anti-library anti-science position. It was the
outspoken interest in electronic formats by major science
research libraries, more than any other group, that encouraged
science publishers to invest in digital dissemination.

Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Thomas J. Walker wrote:

> sh >[I might add only that the distinction between "personal web home page"
> sh >and "e-print servers" is silly, incoherent, and hence untenable, but it
> sh >makes no difference, if it makes some people happy to put it that way...]
>
> There is distinction that to many authors may be important:
>
> E-print servers that are well stocked are a somewhat more convenient place
> to look for particular articles compared to hunting down the authors' home
> pages and looking there.  Of greater consequence, researchers who are not
> looking for articles by the authors in question may find articles by them
> on that well-stocked e-print server, like them, and use them.

Quite right, and this is one of the principal rationales for the Open
Archives Initiative (OAI) http://www.openarchives.org and Eprints
archive-creating software http://www.eprints.org

OAI provides a tagging standard that makes all registered OAI-compliant
Archives interoperable, hence harvestable across archives
http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl
so you need not know the URL of the paper or the
author.

You just search them like one big virtual archive in a centralized
index: See http://cite-base.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search
and http://arc.cs.odu.edu/

But the home-page/public distinction is moot, since authors can run
their own eprints servers too, and register them as OAI-compliant!
http://rocky.dlib.vt.edu/~oai/cgi-bin/Explorer/oai1.0/testoai


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

Steve:

I am sorry;I am too pressed at this time...and in any event I do not need
more any lectures from Stevan. ( see post below).
The teaching issues/problems (in the UK) are explained in detail at:
http://www.ukcle.ac.uk/copyright/

Alan Story


Stevan:

Sally Morris' note raised the issue of copyright and journals on your list.
And so I responded with a copyright and journals-related response. If you do
not want copyight-related  posts, then don't put them on in the first place.

And no lectures, thank you.

Alan Story
 - Original Message -
From: "Steve Hitchcock" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> Alan,For the benefit of authors who may have little knowledge
> of different rights but have probably heard of copyright, can you explain
> briefly what copyright is and why retaining it may be of little use to the
> author, as you suggest, in this example? Most authors will probably assume
> that if they are allowed to retain copyright they are covered for uses
such
> self-archiving, class use, etc.
>
> Comment on hard-copy rights below.
>
> At 10:30 22/06/01 +0100, Alan Story wrote:
> >The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should
be
> >called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."
> >
> >Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
> >publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be
underlined)
> >ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
> >rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.
> >
> >Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with
Harnad's
> >"subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any "open
> >archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
> >students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
> >educational use of that article.
> >
> >In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available
with
> >most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era.
> >
> >Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy
> >publication right. And not a tad more.
>
> Now that most print journals have e-replicas, I assume such journals would
> be unable to publish those papers for which they were granted only first
> hard-copy right. Correct?
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> >Alan Story
> >Lecturer in IP Law
> >Kent Law School
> >
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Sally Morris" 
> >To: 
> >Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM
> >Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps I can set the record straight.
> > >
> > > ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals'
copyright
> > > policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study of
> > > journal authors (not publishers) who had recently contributed to a
mixture
> > > of  commercial and non-commercial journals.  We asked, among other
things,
> > > what they thought about copyright retention.   38.1% felt that
copyright
> > > should be transferred to the society or publisher, but full
redistribution
> > > rights retained by the author.   38% felt that copyright should be
> >retained
> > > by the author, but full publishing rights granted to the society or
other
> > > publisher.   23.4% felt that copyright should be retained by the
author,
> >and
> > > only limited publishing rights granted to the society/publisher.
4.8%
> >felt
> > > copyright should be retained by the author's employer and full
publishing
> > > rights granted to the society/publisher;  2.8% were for copyright
> >retention
> > > by employer, limited rights
> > > to society/publisher.   2.3% were for copyright retention by funding
body,
> > > full publishing rights to society/publisher and 1.2% for copyright
> >retention
> > > by funding body, limited rights to society/publisher.   Interestingly,
an
> > > overwhelming 79.5% of respondents did not find that reaching agreement
> >with
> > > publishers about copyright created any obstacle whatever to their
> >publishing
> > > objectives.   There is information about the study, links to
presentations
> > > and articles about it and an order form for the complete report, at
> > > http://www.alps

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

Stevan:

Sally Morris' note raised the issue of copyright and journals on your list.
And so I responded with a copyright and journals-related response. If you do
not
want copyight-related  posts, then don't put them on the first place.

And no lectures, thank you.

Alan Story .



- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Alan Story wrote:
>
> > The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should
be
> > called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."
> >
> > Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
> > publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be
underlined)
> > ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
> > rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.
> >
> > Hence, AFTER hard copy publication (and hence not conflicting with
Harnad's
> > "subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any
"open
> > archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
> > students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
> > educational use of that article.
>
> Please see my original comments on the ALPSP "model license" when it was
> announced in this Forum in 1999 (the URL is long and may truncate in
> your mailer, so you may have to use the mouse rather than just clicking
> on it):
>
>
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind99&L=september98-forum&F=
l#6
>
> To clarify the Subversive Proposal:
>
>  http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/
>
> The ONLY thing that the authors of refereed research papers want or
> need is the right to self-archive publicly online in perpetuo. **That
> is all!** The rest is taken care of by the nature of the Web itself. A
> publicly archived document is accessible to anyone and everyone with
> access to the Net/Web.
>
> Please do not conflate this very important and clearcut right, unique to
> the refereed research literature, which is and always has been an author
> give-away, with other copyright concerns, having to do with "fair use",
> "intellectual property," etc. Those are all worthy causes but NOT the
> same as what is the primary focus of this Forum, which is the refereed
> research literature, written by researchers, for researchers, and for
> research itself.
>
> If we mix up the two (for-research/for-teaching, or
> give-away/non-give-away), we not only cloud the picture, but we delay
> the optimal/inevitable outcome (for the refereed research literature):
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5
>
> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1
>
> The following is all that is needed in a copyright statement for the
> refereed research literature (but ALPSP alas does not seem to
> quite provide it)(from: http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/copyright.html):
>
> "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."
>
> The American Physical Society version of this same basic arrangement is
> at ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc :
>
> "The author(s) shall have the following rights:  The author(s)
> agree that all copies of the Article made under any of these
> following rights shall include notice of the APS copyright...
>
> 
>
>   (3)  The right, after publication by APS, to use all or part of
>   the Article without revision or modification, including the
>   APS-formatted version, 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 the
>   Article for the author's use for lecture or classroom purposes.
>
>   (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.  Any such posting made or updated
>   after acceptance of the Article for publication shall include a
>   link to the online abstract in the APS journal or to the entry
>   page of the journal.
>
> [I might add only that the distinction between "personal web home page"
> and

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Alan Story wrote:

> The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be
> called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."
>
> Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
> publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined)
> ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
> rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.
>
> Hence, AFTER hard copy publication (and hence not conflicting with Harnad's
> "subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any "open
> archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
> students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
> educational use of that article.

Please see my original comments on the ALPSP "model license" when it was
announced in this Forum in 1999 (the URL is long and may truncate in
your mailer, so you may have to use the mouse rather than just clicking
on it):

http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind99&L=september98-forum&F=l#6

To clarify the Subversive Proposal:

 http://www.arl.org/sc/subversive/

The ONLY thing that the authors of refereed research papers want or
need is the right to self-archive publicly online in perpetuo. **That
is all!** The rest is taken care of by the nature of the Web itself. A
publicly archived document is accessible to anyone and everyone with
access to the Net/Web.

Please do not conflate this very important and clearcut right, unique to
the refereed research literature, which is and always has been an author
give-away, with other copyright concerns, having to do with "fair use",
"intellectual property," etc. Those are all worthy causes but NOT the
same as what is the primary focus of this Forum, which is the refereed
research literature, written by researchers, for researchers, and for
research itself.

If we mix up the two (for-research/for-teaching, or
give-away/non-give-away), we not only cloud the picture, but we delay
the optimal/inevitable outcome (for the refereed research literature):

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#5

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1

The following is all that is needed in a copyright statement for the
refereed research literature (but ALPSP alas does not seem to
quite provide it)(from: http://cogprints.soton.ac.uk/copyright.html):

"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."

The American Physical Society version of this same basic arrangement is
at ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc :

"The author(s) shall have the following rights:  The author(s)
agree that all copies of the Article made under any of these
following rights shall include notice of the APS copyright...



  (3)  The right, after publication by APS, to use all or part of
  the Article without revision or modification, including the
  APS-formatted version, 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 the
  Article for the author's use for lecture or classroom purposes.

  (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.  Any such posting made or updated
  after acceptance of the Article for publication shall include a
  link to the online abstract in the APS journal or to the entry
  page of the journal.

[I might add only that the distinction between "personal web home page"
and "e-print servers" is silly, incoherent, and hence untenable, but it
makes no difference, if it makes some people happy to put it that way...]



Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):


http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

You may join the list at the site above.

Discussion can be posted to:

american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Steve Hitchcock]

Alan,For the benefit of authors who may have little knowledge
of different rights but have probably heard of copyright, can you explain
briefly what copyright is and why retaining it may be of little use to the
author, as you suggest, in this example? Most authors will probably assume
that if they are allowed to retain copyright they are covered for uses such
self-archiving, class use, etc.

Comment on hard-copy rights below.

At 10:30 22/06/01 +0100, Alan Story wrote:

The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be
called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."

Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined)
ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.

Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with Harnad's
"subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any "open
archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
educational use of that article.

In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available with
most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era.

Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy
publication right. And not a tad more.


Now that most print journals have e-replicas, I assume such journals would
be unable to publish those papers for which they were granted only first
hard-copy right. Correct?

Steve




Alan Story
Lecturer in IP Law
Kent Law School



- Original Message -
From: "Sally Morris" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> Perhaps I can set the record straight.
>
> ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright
> policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study of
> journal authors (not publishers) who had recently contributed to a mixture
> of  commercial and non-commercial journals.  We asked, among other things,
> what they thought about copyright retention.   38.1% felt that copyright
> should be transferred to the society or publisher, but full redistribution
> rights retained by the author.   38% felt that copyright should be
retained
> by the author, but full publishing rights granted to the society or other
> publisher.   23.4% felt that copyright should be retained by the author,
and
> only limited publishing rights granted to the society/publisher.   4.8%
felt
> copyright should be retained by the author's employer and full publishing
> rights granted to the society/publisher;  2.8% were for copyright
retention
> by employer, limited rights
> to society/publisher.   2.3% were for copyright retention by funding body,
> full publishing rights to society/publisher and 1.2% for copyright
retention
> by funding body, limited rights to society/publisher.   Interestingly, an
> overwhelming 79.5% of respondents did not find that reaching agreement
with
> publishers about copyright created any obstacle whatever to their
publishing
> objectives.   There is information about the study, links to presentations
> and articles about it and an order form for the complete report, at
> http://www.alpsp.org/pub1.htm
>
> As a result, however, of the indication that more than 60% of authors
(more,
> in fact, in the Humanities than in the Sciences) felt the author should
> retain copyright, ALPSP has since developed and published a model 'grant
of
> licence' document which publishers might use to enable authors to retain
> copyright, while granting to the publisher all the rights it needs.   This
> document can be found at http://www.alpsp.org/grantli.pdf, and an
editorial
> about it at
> http://www.alpsp.org/cpyauth.pdf.
>
> Sally
>
>
>
> Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>
> Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-...@alpsp.org
> ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org
>
> Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
> www.learned-publishing.org
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Guillermo Julio Padron Gonzalez" 
> To: 
> Sent: 31 May 2001 20:59
> Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
>
>
> > Fytton Rowland wrote:
> > > A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional
> Society
> > > Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Lee Giles]

Standards are great and often make the difference between the success and
failure of an endeavor. But in some cases other standards can be used and not 
put
additional burdens on authors and users. It's possible to set up an open archive
that's useful and not require authors any additional work except putting
their papers on their web site in some eformat. This works because there are
already a few but widely used accepted standards for publishing documents - pdf,
doc, postscript, html, etc. (It would be easy to include new ones such as xml.)

The archive works by being active instead of passive. A smart crawler
spiders the web searching for manuscripts. After finding the edocuments,
an indexer converts the documents to text, indexes them and provides a
query engine that allows search based on key words, phrases and citations.
Other features such as cocitation, active bibliographies, collaborative
filtering, etc. can be installed. Links to the original papers can be 
maintained.

This is entire process is automated except for requirement that the authors
place their papers in some standard eformat in an accessible web site.
Because this is automated, some errors do occur. Subsequently, authors and
others can ask for corrections.

As an example, see researchindex.org and cora.whizbang.com which have
archives for computer science papers. These two archives
have over 300,000 papers, 500,000 unique authors and 3 million citations. In
addition, they receive about 100,000 page views a day. The researchindex
software is free for noncommercial use and cora has established a new
archive for statistics papers.

Best regards,

Lee Giles

Stevan Harnad wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, Thomas J. Walker wrote:
>
> > sh >[I might add only that the distinction between "personal web home page"
> > sh >and "e-print servers" is silly, incoherent, and hence untenable, but it
> > sh >makes no difference, if it makes some people happy to put it that 
> > way...]
> >
> > There is distinction that to many authors may be important:
> >
> > E-print servers that are well stocked are a somewhat more convenient place
> > to look for particular articles compared to hunting down the authors' home
> > pages and looking there.  Of greater consequence, researchers who are not
> > looking for articles by the authors in question may find articles by them
> > on that well-stocked e-print server, like them, and use them.
>
> Quite right, and this is one of the principal rationales for the Open
> Archives Initiative (OAI) http://www.openarchives.org and Eprints
> archive-creating software http://www.eprints.org
>
> OAI provides a tagging standard that makes all registered OAI-compliant
> Archives interoperable, hence harvestable across archives
> http://oaisrv.nsdl.cornell.edu/Register/BrowseSites.pl
> so you need not know the URL of the paper or the
> author.
>
> You just search them like one big virtual archive in a centralized
> index: See http://cite-base.ecs.soton.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search
> and http://arc.cs.odu.edu/
>
> But the home-page/public distinction is moot, since authors can run
> their own eprints servers too, and register them as OAI-compliant!
> http://rocky.dlib.vt.edu/~oai/cgi-bin/Explorer/oai1.0/testoai
>
> 
> Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
> Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
> Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
>  Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
> University of Southamptonhttp://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
> Highfield, Southampton   http://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
> SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

--
Dr. C. Lee Giles, David Reese Professor
School of Information Sciences and Technology
and Computer Science and Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University
504 Rider Building, 120 S Burrowes St
University Park, PA, 16801, USA
gi...@ist.psu.edu - 814 865 7884
http://ist.psu.edu/giles

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be
called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."

Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined)
ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.

Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with Harnad's
"subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any "open
archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
educational use of that article.

In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available with
most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era.

Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy
publication right. And not a tad more.

Regards

Alan Story
Lecturer in IP Law
Kent Law School



- Original Message -
From: "Sally Morris" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> Perhaps I can set the record straight.
>
> ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright
> policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study of
> journal authors (not publishers) who had recently contributed to a mixture
> of  commercial and non-commercial journals.  We asked, among other things,
> what they thought about copyright retention.   38.1% felt that copyright
> should be transferred to the society or publisher, but full redistribution
> rights retained by the author.   38% felt that copyright should be
retained
> by the author, but full publishing rights granted to the society or other
> publisher.   23.4% felt that copyright should be retained by the author,
and
> only limited publishing rights granted to the society/publisher.   4.8%
felt
> copyright should be retained by the author's employer and full publishing
> rights granted to the society/publisher;  2.8% were for copyright
retention
> by employer, limited rights
> to society/publisher.   2.3% were for copyright retention by funding body,
> full publishing rights to society/publisher and 1.2% for copyright
retention
> by funding body, limited rights to society/publisher.   Interestingly, an
> overwhelming 79.5% of respondents did not find that reaching agreement
with
> publishers about copyright created any obstacle whatever to their
publishing
> objectives.   There is information about the study, links to presentations
> and articles about it and an order form for the complete report, at
> http://www.alpsp.org/pub1.htm
>
> As a result, however, of the indication that more than 60% of authors
(more,
> in fact, in the Humanities than in the Sciences) felt the author should
> retain copyright, ALPSP has since developed and published a model 'grant
of
> licence' document which publishers might use to enable authors to retain
> copyright, while granting to the publisher all the rights it needs.   This
> document can be found at http://www.alpsp.org/grantli.pdf, and an
editorial
> about it at
> http://www.alpsp.org/cpyauth.pdf.
>
> Sally
>
>
>
> Sally Morris, Secretary-General
> Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
> South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
>
> Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-...@alpsp.org
> ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org
>
> Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
> www.learned-publishing.org
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Guillermo Julio Padron Gonzalez" 
> To: 
> Sent: 31 May 2001 20:59
> Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
>
>
> > Fytton Rowland wrote:
> > > A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional
> Society
> > > Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the
> journals
> > > surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
> > > asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author
> > > insisted on granting only a right of first publication.
> >
> > Could you provide us with the reference of the original paper?
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Guillermo
> >
> > Dr Guillermo J Padron
> > Executive Editor
> > Elfos Scientiae
> > P.O. Box 6072
> > Havana 6, Cuba
> > Telephones: (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8008
> > Fax (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8070
> > E-mail: g...@cigb.edu.cu <mailto:g...@cigb.edu.cu>
> > URL: http://www.elfosscientiae.com.cu
>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on Fri, 22 Jun 2001 Alan Story  wrote:
 
> The ALPSP may call their deal a "model licence"...but instead it should be
> called a "Model-T (as in circa 1930 Model-T Ford ) licence."
> 
> Yes, the author gets the possibility of retaining copyright, but the
> publisher is assigned (at no cost to the publisher it should be underlined)
> ALL of the other rights, including digitalisation rights, re-publication
> rights, rights regarding non-profit educational uses of the work.
> 
> Hence, AFTER hard copy publication ( and hence not conflicting with Harnad's
> "subversive proposal"),  the publisher has the right to prevent any "open
> archiving" by an author(X) or her/his work and the right to charge the
> students of X's colleague a copyright royalty fee for the non-profit
> educational use of that article.
> 
> In other words, a tiny tad better than the standard contract available with
> most commercial publishers...but still a Model T in the contemporary era.
> 
> Any license should grant only one right to a publisher: a first hard-copy
> publication right. And not a tad more.

Clearly an anti-library anti-science position. It was the 
outspoken interest in electronic formats by major science 
research libraries, more than any other group, that encouraged 
science publishers to invest in digital dissemination. 

Albert Henderson
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Thomas J. Walker]

At 11:38 AM 6/22/2001 +0100, Stevan wrote:

The American Physical Society version of this same basic arrangement is
at ftp://aps.org/pub/jrnls/copy_trnsfr.asc :

"The author(s) shall have the following rights:  The author(s)
agree that all copies of the Article made under any of these
following rights shall include notice of the APS copyright...



  (3)  The right, after publication by APS, to use all or part of
  the Article without revision or modification, including the
  APS-formatted version, 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 the
  Article for the author's use for lecture or classroom purposes.

  (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.  Any such posting made or updated
  after acceptance of the Article for publication shall include a
  link to the online abstract in the APS journal or to the entry
  page of the journal.

[I might add only that the distinction between "personal web home page"
and "e-print servers" is silly, incoherent, and hence untenable, but it
makes no difference, if it makes some people happy to put it that way...]



There is distinction that to many authors may be important:

E-print servers that are well stocked are a somewhat more convenient place
to look for particular articles compared to hunting down the authors' home
pages and looking there.  Of greater consequence, researchers who are not
looking for articles by the authors in question may find articles by them
on that well-stocked e-print server, like them, and use them.

It would be interesting and possibly profit-making if APS would give their
authors the opportunity to pay a fair price for APS putting their fully
formatted articles on arXive.org.  It would also give APS a source of
revenue should their subscriptions falter.

Tom W.



Thomas J. Walker
Department of Entomology & Nematology
PO Box 110620 (or Natural Area Drive)
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0620
E-mail: t...@ufl.edu   FAX: (352)392-0190
Web: http://csssrvr.entnem.ufl.edu/~walker/tjwbib/walker.htm

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Sally Morris]

Perhaps I can set the record straight.

ALPSP has not (at least in the past 3 years) surveyed journals' copyright
policies, although in 1998/9, the Association did carry out a study of
journal authors (not publishers) who had recently contributed to a mixture
of  commercial and non-commercial journals.  We asked, among other things,
what they thought about copyright retention.   38.1% felt that copyright
should be transferred to the society or publisher, but full redistribution
rights retained by the author.   38% felt that copyright should be retained
by the author, but full publishing rights granted to the society or other
publisher.   23.4% felt that copyright should be retained by the author, and
only limited publishing rights granted to the society/publisher.   4.8% felt
copyright should be retained by the author's employer and full publishing
rights granted to the society/publisher;  2.8% were for copyright retention
by employer, limited rights
to society/publisher.   2.3% were for copyright retention by funding body,
full publishing rights to society/publisher and 1.2% for copyright retention
by funding body, limited rights to society/publisher.   Interestingly, an
overwhelming 79.5% of respondents did not find that reaching agreement with
publishers about copyright created any obstacle whatever to their publishing
objectives.   There is information about the study, links to presentations
and articles about it and an order form for the complete report, at
http://www.alpsp.org/pub1.htm

As a result, however, of the indication that more than 60% of authors (more,
in fact, in the Humanities than in the Sciences) felt the author should
retain copyright, ALPSP has since developed and published a model 'grant of
licence' document which publishers might use to enable authors to retain
copyright, while granting to the publisher all the rights it needs.   This
document can be found at http://www.alpsp.org/grantli.pdf, and an editorial
about it at
http://www.alpsp.org/cpyauth.pdf.

Sally



Sally Morris, Secretary-General
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK

Phone:  01903 871686 Fax:  01903 871457 E-mail:  sec-...@alpsp.org
ALPSP Website  http://www.alpsp.org

Learned Publishing is now online, free of charge, at
www.learned-publishing.org

- Original Message -
From: "Guillermo Julio Padron Gonzalez" 
To: 
Sent: 31 May 2001 20:59
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> Fytton Rowland wrote:
> > A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional
Society
> > Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the
journals
> > surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
> > asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author
> > insisted on granting only a right of first publication.
>
> Could you provide us with the reference of the original paper?
> Thanks,
>
> Guillermo
>
> Dr Guillermo J Padron
> Executive Editor
> Elfos Scientiae
> P.O. Box 6072
> Havana 6, Cuba
> Telephones: (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8008
> Fax (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8070
> E-mail: g...@cigb.edu.cu <mailto:g...@cigb.edu.cu>
> URL: http://www.elfosscientiae.com.cu

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Tue, 5 Jun 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:

> > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:

> The claim that one can leave the preprint in place as a somehow
> different work, after transferring the copyright is
> dangerously misleading.

The claim is only (1) that having-been-previously-self-archived-
on-the-web is NOT a violation of any copyright transfer agreement, and
(2) that once it has been archived-on-the-web, it is no longer fully
within any author's power to withdraw. So "withdrawal" is moot.

No danger; no misleading. Go ahead and self-archive your preprints,
safely sign any copyright transfer agreement after the paper is
accepted, and if the publisher will not publish the paper unless you
sign away your right to self-archive that paper, just self-archive the
corrigenda.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on 6/1/2001 David Goodman  wrote:

> dg>   This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve
> dg>   and so many of us are urging be changed universally.
>
> George Lundberg wrote:
>
> gl> In the document entitled  Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts
> gl> Submitted to Medical Journals published by the International
> gl> Committee of Medical Journal Editors it is stated that
> gl> "...electronic publication is publication" Most such
> gl> journals do not wish to consider for publication a paper that
> gl> has already been published. Thus an author can choose the
> gl> initial method of distribution of written work once only.

  On the other hand, Stevan Harnad seems to agree with the medical
  editors.

  For example,

on 31 May 2001 Harnad  wrote:

> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
>
> >ah>   I am saying that after the transfer of copyright, the
> >ah>   article must be withdrawn unless the agreement provides
> >ah>   for continued publication of the preprint form of the work.
>
> sh> This is all predicated on prior PUBLICATION, where "publication" is
> sh> constured to be the same sort of thing as that "secondary"
> sh> publication which now calls for the withdrawal of the primary one.
>
> sh> That's all Gutenberg gibberish. Legally, even a hand-written copy
> sh> on toilet paper or a lavatory wall is "publication" (and protected
> sh> by copyright); so is a radio reading, which can be taped by
> sh> countless listeners.

You can't have it both ways.

The claim that one can leave the preprint in place as a somehow
different work, after transferring the copyright is
dangerously misleading. The author who follows such advice
cannot excuse his behavior by saying "Harnad told me to do it."
If Harnad said jump off the bridge 

Best wishes,

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[David Goodman]

George, does this mean that you now consider the Ingelfinger Rule
outdated or inappropriate as a general matter? As I believe you were
widely known as a supporter of it in your NEJM days, a definite
statement about your current position that could be further circulated
would be of great help to all working for a more rational system.
-- David

George Lundberg wrote:
>
> david
> i will try to be clear(as i believe i have been--for example  the great
> Franz Ingelfinger is long gone and bad laws can be broken or challenged and
> changed))
> ...
> george
>
>

--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Digital Resources Researcher
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgood...@princeton.edu

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[George Lundberg]

david
i will try to be clear(as i believe i have been--for example  the great
Franz Ingelfinger is long gone and bad laws can be broken or challenged and
changed))
re'your 1.   of course paper journals can become paper and web   or web only
but there is a major cultural and procedural and economic transition
requiredand many humans(and organizations)wed to paper and its
processes(and revenue) have had great difficluty with such a full transition
perhaps they will improve over timeif proper incentives could be in
place
2. label and reputation can transfer to the webor can become deserved by
track records for web originals over time..
Professional editing and peer review can be applied in many web constructs
in addition to "traditional" web journals
For example  www.CBSHealthwatch.com uses professional editors and high
quality named peer reviewers as a routine   FOR CONSUMER information yet

rarely has there been greater opportunity to create and do things wellor
to downgrade, unfortunately.
hope this exchange helps some   we have a wonderful new medium to use well
for fabulous activities in the public interest
george

-Original Message-
From: David Goodman [mailto:dgood...@princeton.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:22 PM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


George, Your explanation for your position leaves me with 2 qys:
  1. Cannot these values also be achieved by the conversion of printed
journals to web only journals? Do we really need additional journals?
  2. But this contradicts your first paragraph; the editing and peer
review can be applied in many ways on the net, including the
conventional one you use in your own Medscape titles.
Label and reputation will work just as well on the net.

George Lundberg wrote:
...
  The
> great values of electronic publishing can be realized without diminishing
> quality by simply creating many fully electronic journals that are edited
> professionally and follow the peer review process diligently and are made
> available on the internet free of charge to all. Anyone who wishes to read
> the information on a printed page can  furnish their own paper. Some of
you
> presumably know that at www.medscape.com we have been doing this now for
two
> years with www.medgenmed.com and a developing family of eJournals that
> complement our many other forms of electronic information, all made freely
> available very rapidly to internet users.

...

>  But i believe readers of biomedical information have a
> right to be able to reasonably trust at least some sources of such
> information and be able to determine by label and reputation what has a
good
> chance of being trustworthy because the authors, peer reviewers, editors,
> and publishers followed accepted time-tested rules.
> george lundberg
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Goodman [mailto:dgood...@princeton.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:43 AM
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
>
> This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
> many of us are urging be changed universally.
>
> George Lundberg wrote:
> >
> > In the document entitled   Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts
Submitted
> to
> > Medical Journals published by the  International Committee of Medical
> > Journal Editors it is stated that "electronic publication is
> > publication."  Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> > publication a paper that has already been published.  Thus an author can
> > choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
> > george lundberg
>
> -
>

--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgood...@princeton.edu


**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender or call Medscape at 877-676-1597.
**

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

> > George Lundberg wrote:
> >
> > In the document entitled Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
> > to Medical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical
> > Journal Editors it is stated that "...electronic publication is
> > publication..." Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> > publication a paper that has already been published. Thus an author can
> > choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
>
> David Goodman  added:
>
> This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
> many of us are urging be changed universally.

First, although it is often ambiguous whether "Steve" refers to me or
to my colleague Steve Hitchcock, let me for my own part repeat, as
indicated in my prior posting, that this statement of George's is not
at all clear, nor does it seem to correspond to the document ("Uniform
Requirements...") from which it is purported to be an excerpt.

To repeat, it is not clear whether George means in this statement to
be endorsing the construal of the Ingelfinger Rule that "rules out"
publishing or refereeing papers that have been self-archived as
preprints online.

Note that the Ingelfinger Rule is NOT a legal matter, and is not a
copyright policy. It is a submission policy.

I agree with David, however, that if George is indeed here endorsing
the Ingelfinger Rule, so construed, then many of us are indeed urging
that this policy be changed. I am also urging that it be ignored, as
it has no legal force, and is unenforceable. In addition, we are all
urging that copyright transfer policy itself be changed. The
Ingelfinger Rule should cease to be invoked to try to prevent the
self-archiving of preprints, and copyright transfer should cease to
be used to make self-archiving of the postprint illegal.

I advocate (1) completely ignoring the Ingelfinger Rule, as having no
legal force whatsoever, and I further advocate (2) legally
circumventing copyright transfer agreements (if one has no choice but
to sign them) that explicitly deny the right to self-archive the
refereed postprint online as follows:

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#Harnad/Oppenheim

Now I have been quite clear. I am afraid George has neither been
clear, nor has he read carefully what it is that is being said in
this Forum:

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, George Lundberg wrote:

> i have no doubt that many wish said policy changed for a wide range of
> reasons that have been eloquently (albeit tediously and non-persuasively)
> argued on these pages.

It is not yet clear which policy George is referring to. I shall
assume he means the Ingelfinger Rule.

> I have substantial doubt that the policy needs to be
> changed or that the world would somehow be better if it were changed.

The policy is to proclaim that the journal will neither referee nor
publish submissions that have been self-archived on the Web.

Here is a reason the policy needs to be changed: It arbitrarily denies
researchers the right to disseminate their findings before they are
refereed. I would like to hear the justification for such a rule.

It is not a justification for the rule to say "the rule is in place and
I don't think it will improve things to change it." Here's a reason it
will improve things: the very same reason why people circulate their
pre-refereeing findings to colleagues as paper preprints, why they
report them at scientific meetings, and why physicists have archived
150,000 of them on the Web: Because it accelerates and broadens the
research cycle.

Now, George, kindly describe the basis for your "substantial doubt"
on this score.

But before you raise a hew and cry about "protecting public health,"
kindly look at the pre-emptive rebuttals of that rationale (which
would only apply to a minority of biomedical research in any case) in:

Harnad, S. (2000) E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus
Online. Computer Law & Security Report 16(2) 78-87.  [Rebuttal to
Bloom Editorial in Science and Relman Editorial in New England
Journal of Medicine]
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.scinejm.htm

There is no point rehearsing here arguments that have already been
rebutted before.

> The great values of electronic publishing can be realized without
> diminishing quality -- by simply creating many fully electronic journals
> that are edited professionally and follow the peer review process
> diligently and are made available on the internet free of charge to all.

We are in complete agreement with this. But what is to be done about
the overwhelming majority of the current refereed journal corpus that
is NOT available on the internet free of charge to all?

Should researchers wait? Should the physicists have waited?

And what does this have to do with the Ingelfinger Rule?

> Anyone who wishes to read the information on a printed page can
> furnish their own paper. Some of you presumably know that at
> www.medscape.com we have b

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, George Lundberg wrote:

> In the document entitled Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
> to Medical Journals published by the International Committee of Medical
> Journal Editors it is stated that "...electronic publication is
> publication..." Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> publication a paper that has already been published. Thus an author can
> choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.

It is not clear to me why George posted this comment in the
"Copyright" thread. Nor does the brief passage he quotes appear
in the version I found on the Web (original draft 1978, revised in
1997, last update of web version 5 May 2000).

http://www.cma.ca/mwc/uniform.htm

The closest approximation I could find was:

   "Most journals do not wish to receive papers on work that
   has already been reported in large part in a published
   article or is described in a paper that has been
   submitted or accepted for publication elsewhere, in
   print or in electronic media. This policy does not
   preclude the journal considering a paper that has been
   rejected by another journal, or a complete report that
   follows publication of a preliminary report such as an
   abstract or poster displayed for colleagues at a
   professional meeting. Nor does it prevent journals
   considering a paper that has been presented at a
   scientific meeting but not published in full or that is
   being considered for publication in a proceedings or
   similar format."

I doubt that George is meaning to construe this as the "Ingelfinger
Rule," which has nothing to do with copyright, and which some
journals try to invoke as a justification for declining to publish or
even to referee papers that have been archived online as preprints.

If that is George's intention, then please note that the Ingelfinger
Rule is neither a legal matter nor is it enforceable. Nor does it have
any justification -- scientific, ethical, or otherwise. It is merely a
measure for protecting journal revenue streams. (About protecting
public health, see references below.) And it has been discussed in this
Forum, before (e.g., under the thread "Ingelfinger and physics
journals").

Harnad, S. (2000) Ingelfinger Over-Ruled: The Role of the Web in
the Future of Refereed Medical Journal Publishing.  Lancet
Perspectives 256 (December Supplement): s16.
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.lancet.htm

Harnad, S. (2000) E-Knowledge: Freeing the Refereed Journal Corpus
Online. Computer Law & Security Report 16(2) 78-87. [Rebuttal to
Bloom Editorial in Science and Relman Editorial in New England
Journalof Medicine]
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad00.scinejm.htm
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/285/5425/197#EL12

Nor do I think George is merely trying to remind us of a home truth
that everyone in the American Scientist Forum surely knows and accepts
already: That a refereed electronic-only journal is indeed a journal,
hence publication in such a journal is indeed publication.

So just what point WAS George trying to make with this posting?


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[David Goodman]

George, Your explanation for your position leaves me with 2 qys:
  1. Cannot these values also be achieved by the conversion of printed
journals to web only journals? Do we really need additional journals?
  2. But this contradicts your first paragraph; the editing and peer
review can be applied in many ways on the net, including the
conventional one you use in your own Medscape titles.
Label and reputation will work just as well on the net.

George Lundberg wrote:
...
  The
> great values of electronic publishing can be realized without diminishing
> quality by simply creating many fully electronic journals that are edited
> professionally and follow the peer review process diligently and are made
> available on the internet free of charge to all. Anyone who wishes to read
> the information on a printed page can  furnish their own paper. Some of you
> presumably know that at www.medscape.com we have been doing this now for two
> years with www.medgenmed.com and a developing family of eJournals that
> complement our many other forms of electronic information, all made freely
> available very rapidly to internet users.

...

>  But i believe readers of biomedical information have a
> right to be able to reasonably trust at least some sources of such
> information and be able to determine by label and reputation what has a good
> chance of being trustworthy because the authors, peer reviewers, editors,
> and publishers followed accepted time-tested rules.
> george lundberg
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Goodman [mailto:dgood...@princeton.edu]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:43 AM
> To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
> Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research
>
> This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
> many of us are urging be changed universally.
>
> George Lundberg wrote:
> >
> > In the document entitled   Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
> to
> > Medical Journals published by the  International Committee of Medical
> > Journal Editors it is stated that "electronic publication is
> > publication."  Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> > publication a paper that has already been published.  Thus an author can
> > choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
> > george lundberg
>
> -
>

--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgood...@princeton.edu

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[George Lundberg]

In the document entitled   Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
Medical Journals published by the  International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors it is stated that "electronic publication is
publication."  Most such journals do not wish to consider for
publication a paper that has already been published.  Thus an author can
choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
george lundberg

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

> > On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
>
> Speaking more generally, it is clear that there is a
> sense of publication when a work is made available on an
> Internet database. This medium is different from printing
> and distributing a number of copies. It differs from print,
> in this context, in that it can begin and also end on the
> author's command.
>
> When the author asks a publisher to invest in the work,
> transferring the copyright to leverage that investment,
> the author has a duty to remove the alternative form
> of the work from public access when the copyright is
> transferred.
>
> [snip, snip, snip]

In Albert's snips he has unfortunately deleted the portion that already
replies to this. No matter how one tries to fit the PostGutenberg Web
into this Procrustean Gutenberg Bed, it cannot be done, and hence
legislation cannot be predicated on it (i.e., on doing the undoable):

Once a text has been publicly archived by its author at one website, it
is mirrored, cached, harvested, stored and restored at countless other
sites Webwide till Doomsday. This Juggernaut is decidedly NOT under the
"author's command," and it is unstoppable. If it would be hard to
demonstrate that the pre-copyright preprint at the designated website
would hurt sales, it would be impossible to demonstrate that the
countless other cached copies MINUS that website would hurt them any
less. And all this, remember, PRE-DATES the copyright transfer.

(And all this without even considering the slippery slope of how much
constitutes a prior "alternative form"...)

So the only utility in invoking such obsolete, unenforceable, and
incoherent legalistic menaces now is to temporarily intimidate the
average, short-sighted researcher into needlessly refraining from
self-archiving right now. This filibuster may work for a few years yet,
but not if I (and others) can help it: The word too will propagate,
just as the cached copies do...

May I suggest that Albert instead direct his efforts toward protecting
the vast majoritarian texts (books, magazines, newspapers) that are NOT
author give-aways, from consumer cyberpiracy, via napster and gnutella?
The tiny minoritarian author give-away literature (20K refereed
journals-full per annum) is just a flea on the tail of this dog, and
its liberation by its own authors is not only optimal (for research and
researchers and society) and inevitable, but just: It can only be
delayed by disinformation, not stopped.

http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#9.1

In the past decade, 150,000 such papers have already been self-archived
by the Physicists (who are decidedly more far-sighted than the average
researcher, and will get historic credit for having led the way)
without a single attempt at legal action along the lines Albert is here
brandishing.

Wizard-of-Oz intimidation is the last recourse of the defenders of
an obsolete and indefensible means of disseminating give-away
refereed research findings.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):


http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

You may join the list at the site above.

Discussion can be posted to:

american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[George Lundberg]

i have no doubt that many wish said policy changed for a wide range of
reasons that have been eloquently(albeit tediously and non-persuasively)
argued on these pages.  I have substantial doubt that the policy needs to be
changed or that the world would somehow be better if it were changed. The
great values of electronic publishing can be realized without diminishing
quality by simply creating many fully electronic journals that are edited
professionally and follow the peer review process diligently and are made
available on the internet free of charge to all. Anyone who wishes to read
the information on a printed page can  furnish their own paper. Some of you
presumably know that at www.medscape.com we have been doing this now for two
years with www.medgenmed.com and a developing family of eJournals that
complement our many other forms of electronic information, all made freely
available very rapidly to internet users. What the world does not
need(although i grant that it does already have it in many fields in and out
of science)is mass produced vanity epresses where anyone at all can be the
self-designated author, the editor, and the publisher, all at the same time,
and potentially fake the whole thing, to the possible detriment of mislead
readers.  I have absolutely no interest in censoring the internet, even if
it were possible.  But i believe readers of biomedical information have a
right to be able to reasonably trust at least some sources of such
information and be able to determine by label and reputation what has a good
chance of being trustworthy because the authors, peer reviewers, editors,
and publishers followed accepted time-tested rules.
george lundberg

-Original Message-
From: David Goodman [mailto:dgood...@princeton.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:43 AM
To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
many of us are urging be changed universally.

George Lundberg wrote:
>
> In the document entitled   Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted
to
> Medical Journals published by the  International Committee of Medical
> Journal Editors it is stated that "electronic publication is
> publication."  Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> publication a paper that has already been published.  Thus an author can
> choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
> george lundberg

--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgood...@princeton.edu


**
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender or call Medscape at 877-676-1597.
**

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[David Goodman]

This is a very clear statement of exactly the policy that Steve and so
many of us are urging be changed universally.

George Lundberg wrote:
>
> In the document entitled   Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to
> Medical Journals published by the  International Committee of Medical
> Journal Editors it is stated that "electronic publication is
> publication."  Most such journals do not wish to consider for
> publication a paper that has already been published.  Thus an author can
> choose the initial method of distribution of written work once only.
> george lundberg

--
David Goodman
Biology Librarian
and Co-chair, Electronic Journals Task force
Princeton University Library
Princeton, NJ 08544-0001
phone: 609-258-3235
fax: 609-258-2627
e-mail: dgood...@princeton.edu

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Guillermo Julio Padron Gonzalez]

Fytton Rowland wrote:
> A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional Society
> Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals
> surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
> asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author
> insisted on granting only a right of first publication.

Could you provide us with the reference of the original paper?
Thanks,

Guillermo

Dr Guillermo J Padron
Executive Editor
Elfos Scientiae
P.O. Box 6072
Havana 6, Cuba
Telephones: (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8008
Fax (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8070
E-mail: g...@cigb.edu.cu 
URL: http://www.elfosscientiae.com.cu

PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Albert Henderson]

on 31 May 2001 Stevan Harnad  wrote:
 
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:
> 
[snip]

> > I am saying that after the transfer of copyright, the
> > article must be withdrawn unless the agreement provides
> > for continued publication of the preprint form of the work.
> 
> This is all predicated on prior PUBLICATION, where "publication" is
> constured to be the same sort of thing as that "secondary"
> publication which now calls for the withdrawal of the primary one.
> 
> That's all Gutenberg gibberish. Legally, even a hand-written copy on
> toilet paper or a lavatory wall is "publication" (and protected by
> copyright); so is a radio reading, which can be taped by countless
> listeners. What on earth would the author's obligation to "withdraw"
> all of that from the ether amount to?

After transferring the copyright to a publisher, the 
preprint publication is not only a means of infringement
but an invitation to infringe. The author must delete 
the 'preprint' of the work from the preprint server. 

Speaking more generally, it is clear that there is a 
sense of publication when a work is made available on an
Internet database. This medium is different from printing 
and distributing a number of copies. It differs from print,
in this context, in that it can begin and also end on the 
author's command.

When the author asks a publisher to invest in the work,
transferring the copyright to leverage that investment,
the author has a duty to remove the alternative form
of the work from public access when the copyright is
transferred.

Most large learned publishers have invested heavily in online 
versions of their journals. With the amazing increases in 
sponsored research spending, research institutions should have 
sufficient overhead support to purchase access to everything 
and to attract the sort of investments in post-Gutenberg 
innovations that have advanced communications over the last 
500 years.


Best wishes,

[snip, snip, snip]

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1...@compuserve.com>


.
.

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Alan Story]

And the percentage of commercial publishers, which dominate in the academic
journal field in the UK? I don't have survey data at hand, but the figures
are very different...and a majority do require assignment of copyright to
publishers, which particularly impacts on young academics and non-super
stars who have much less bargaining power over copyright matters.

Alan Story
Kent Law School


- Original Message -
From: "Stevan Harnad" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research


> A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional
Society
> Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals
> surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
> asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author
> insisted on granting only a right of first publication.
>
> Fytton Rowland.
>
>
> **
> Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer,
> Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and
> Programme Tutor for Publishing with English,
> Department of Information Science,
> Loughborough University,
> Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK.
>
> Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039   Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
> E-mail: j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk
> http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/frowland.html
> **
>

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

Albert Henderson wrote:
> Again, in the case of the publication of preprints, since preprints are
> published before the assignment of copyright, that publication cannot be
> a violation of the ``transfer agreement,'' whatever that is.

Of course, from my point of view--and I am an editor of a scholarly
journal--this is not related to copyright infringement, but to the
Ingelfinger rule. So, many editors are taking a distance from this rule
in the sense of recognizing the rights of the author to post
pre-prints.

On the other hand, this discussion would be over if editors continue
to recognize the authors' rights to post their articles as e-prints in
their preferred servers, and incorporate these rights in the copyright
contracts. This item is related to moral copyrights rather than to the
patrimonial side of the problem. I think this is the tendency and the
whole copyright concept will be changing in this direction.

The discussion is most enlightening. Thanks to all.

Dr Guillermo J Padron
Editor Ejecutivo
Elfos Scientiae
Apartado 6072
Ciudad Habana 6
Cuba
Telefonos: (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8008
Fax (53-7) 33-1917 / 21-8070
E-mail: g...@cigb.edu.cu 
URL: http://www.elfosscientiae.com.cu

Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

A recent survey by the (UK) Association of Learned and Professional Society
Publishers showed that a majority (about 70%, from memory) of the journals
surveyed did not insist on outright transfer of copyright; they mostly
asked for it, but would not refuse to publish a paper if the author
insisted on granting only a right of first publication.

Fytton Rowland.


**
Fytton Rowland, M.A., Ph.D., F.I.Inf.Sc., Lecturer,
Deputy Director of Undergraduate Programmes and
Programme Tutor for Publishing with English,
Department of Information Science,
Loughborough University,
Loughborough, Leics LE11 3TU, UK.

Phone +44 (0) 1509 223039   Fax +44 (0) 1509 223053
E-mail: j.f.rowl...@lboro.ac.uk
http://info.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/staff/frowland.html
**

PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

[Stevan Harnad]

On Wed, 30 May 2001, Albert Henderson wrote:

> on 30 May 2001 "Peter D. Junger"  wrote:
> > It is unusual for authors to ``transfer'' the entire copyright in an
> > article to a journal.  Normally all that is assigned is the right of
> > first publication in a journal.
> >
> > Is the situation really so different in the case of scientific journals?
>
> I am only speaking of learned journals. Your "normally"
> refers to mass media and first serial rights. Learned
> journal contracts that I have seen generally transfer
> the copyright "as a work made for hire" and return to
> the author limited rights, for example, to use the
> material in class and in a monograph of which the author
> is the sole originator.

Would it not be odd, and ironic in the extreme, if the category of
texts that are the most remote from being "work made for hire" --
namely, the give-away pre- and post-refereeing research reports that
were most decidedly NOT written for any royalty, fee or salary in
exchange for their writing -- indeed proved to be the ONLY ones
vendors could hold hostage in this way?

I don't believe it for a minute. Nor do I believe that, should anything
like this happen to be technically true in some construal, that it
would be enforceable in any way. It would only have been a glaring
anomaly that no one had noticed or done anything about until now --
because in the Gutenberg Era, with the true associated expenses of
on-paper production and dissemination, there was nothing that COULd
have been done anyway, whereas in the PostGutenberg Era of public
on-line archiving there most decidedely is...

> I am saying that after the transfer of copyright, the
> article must be withdrawn unless the agreement provides
> for continued publication of the preprint form of the work.

This is all predicated on prior PUBLICATION, where "publication" is
constured to be the same sort of thing as that "secondary"
publication which now calls for the withdrawal of the primary one.

That's all Gutenberg gibberish. Legally, even a hand-written copy on
toilet paper or a lavatory wall is "publication" (and protected by
copyright); so is a radio reading, which can be taped by countless
listeners. What on earth would the author's obligation to "withdraw"
all of that from the ether amount to?

Well exactly the same is true of preprint archiving. Once it is in
the bowels of the Internet -- mirrored, cached, downloaded, etc., all
over the planet, there is not a power under the PostGutenberg sun
that could have withdrawn it. So forget about "liability" once the
cybercat is out of the bag.

Try writing a law to enforce the unenforceable, indeed the
incoherent.

No, this is Gutenberg gibberish being naively (but mischievously)
invoked in a PostGutenberg age to which it no longer has any
relevance or applicability. Albert is merely relying upon (and
encouraging) the sluggishness of our generation's minds and habits,
to retard the inevitable and unstoppable descent of the token,
to the eternal advantage of research and humanity, if not certain
vendors' traditional revenue streams.

> The claims, as I read them, that the preprint is somehow
> different than the work affected by the copyright transfer,
> are unrealistic if not downright misleading. They remind
> me of the folks who argue that 5th amendment protections
> against self-incrimination support not filing tax returns ...

Think again. Try reconstruing it instead as applying to (say) the
retroactive erasure of all copies of notes taken at the scientific
conference where these "written-for-hire" results were first reported.
(Polemical images cut both ways.)

> My impression, that the owner of the Internet server
> may be liable, refers to the period following the
> transfer of copyright and notice to the server. Continuing
> to publish is a act of contributory infringment.

Moot, once it's out in the ether.


Stevan Harnad har...@cogsci.soton.ac.uk
Professor of Cognitive Sciencehar...@princeton.edu
Department of Electronics and phone: +44 23-80 592-582
 Computer Science fax:   +44 23-80 592-865
University of Southampton http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/
Highfield, Southamptonhttp://www.princeton.edu/~harnad/
SO17 1BJ UNITED KINGDOM

NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing free
access to the refereed journal literature online is available at the
American Scientist September Forum (98 & 99 & 00 & 01):


http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

You may join the list at the site above.

Discussion can be posted to:

american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org