I have some questions in relation to these assertions: I'm unclear how signing your copyright over to a publisher in toto (which is basically what I was asked to do when publishing with Haworth) would still allow you the right to object to derivative works. Surely only the copyright owner can object to derivative works, and in fact, if the creator is not the copyright owner, the copyright owner has the right to object to derivative works subsequently published by the original creator! (In fact, this is one of the issues I believe the Statute of Anne was meant to address-- Gervase Markham, for instance, was sued by a consortium of his publishers for having sold them all works that were derivatives of each other.)
In terms of restricting where one may publish, doesn't the usual institutional tenure and promotion policy do that as well, if more subtly? There are definite expectations of where one may publish, as I understand it. (Not being tenure-track myself.) After 27 years in the field of librarianship, I can confidently assert that the decline of the scholarly presses that Sandy Thatcher decries predates the OA movement significantly, though not predating the surge of predatory pricing in the 1990s by journal publishers. 18% increases in journal budgets were the rule of thumb even before the widespread electronic availability of subscriptions (the research on that trend is left as an exercise for the reader), and many academic libraries were cutting book budgets to survive even then. Even the AUP admits that the decline of the university press can seen as far back as 1970. respectfully, On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 3:26 PM, SANFORD G THATCHER <s...@psu.edu> wrote: > So, Danny, let me ask if you are ok with funders requiring authors to > publish > under a CC BY license and waive all rights they otherwise would have to > have > input into how and where their writings get translated and how and where > their > works are republished (e.g., in edited form that distorts the author's > meaning > and associates the author with a cause, ideology, etc. that the author > finds > abhorrent)? > > Is these rights do not pertain to academic freedom, please explain why. > > The same might be asked of those universities that require immediate OA > posting > of dissertations, allowing no time for an author to revise it and find a > publisher for it. Various associations (in history, medieval studies, etc.) > have adopted recommended embargo periods to deal with this problem. You are > saying that those associations are wrong to be concerned about this > problem? > That this has nothing to do with academic freedom either? > > Sandy thatcher > > > > On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 04:07 AM Danny Kingsley <da...@cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > >Hi all, > > > >Can we have a quick chat about Academic Freedom? I am frankly fed up with > this > being trotted out in multiple discussions in relation to open access. It is > akin to the PhD student who recently tearfully told me that the > University’s > requirement for her to provide a digital version of her thesis in addition > to > the hardbound one was a ‘breach of her human rights’. I feel the academic > freedom argument is moving into similar levels of hysteria. > >I wrote a blog recently that addresses this issue: Scare campaigns, we > have > seen a few<https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05> > https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p 05 (relevant bits below) > >Usually I hear ‘Academic Freedom’ thrown in in relation to being able to > choose where to publish. On the SCHOLCOMM and GOAL lists in the discussion > about Willinsky’s copyright proposal, academic freedom has been thrown into > the mix again. Given, there is potentially some validity in the statement > that: > “Policies that impact academics that are not developed and supported by > academics are not consistent with academic freedom.” But copyright > ownership > (other than the moral right to be identified as an author of a work), and > the > place of publication are NOT enshrined in academic freedom. > > > >Academic Freedom is not being threatened by copyright licensing > requirements. > This is a stupid side issue. We are fiddling while Rome burns. The real > threat > to academic freedom is the systematic undermining of expertise and > academia. As > the UK justice secretary recently said - “People in this country have had > enough of experts” > https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4-abc22d5d108c Let’s not > even begin to talk about what is happening in the land of stripes and > stars. > > > >Let’s keep focus on the issues that matter. > > > >Danny > > > >***************************************** > >The new scare – threats to ‘Academic Freedom’ > > > >The term ‘Academic Freedom’ comes up a fair bit in discussions about open > access. In his tweet sent during the Researcher to Reader conference*, > one of > my Advisory Board colleagues Rick Anderson tweeted this > comment<https://twitter.com/Looptopper/status/968463945190313984>: > > > >“Most startling thing said to me in conversation at the #R2RConf: > >“I wonder how much longer academic freedom will be tolerated in IHEs.” > (Specific context: authors being allowed to choose where they publish.) > > > >In this blog I’d like to pick up on the ‘Academic Freedom’ part of the > comment (which is not Rick’s, he was quoting). > > > >Academic Freedom, according to a summary in the Times Higher > Education<https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2010/ > 12/21/defining-academic-freedom> is primarily that “Academic freedom > means that both faculty members and students can engage in intellectual > debate without fear of censorship or retaliation”. > > > >This definition was based on the American Association of University > Professors’ (AAUP) Statement on Academic Freedom<https://www.aaup.org/ > report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure> which > includes, quite specifically, “full freedom in research and in the > publication of results”. > > > >Personally I read that as meaning academics should be allowed to publish, > not that they have full freedom in choosing where. > > > >Rick has since contacted the AAUP<https://scholarlykitchen. > sspnet.org/2018/03/05/open-letter-aaup-faculty-authors- > full-freedom-publication/> to ask for clarification on this topic. Last > Friday, he tweeted that the AAUP has declined to revisit the 1940 statement > to clarify the ‘freedom in publication’ statement in light of evolution of > scholarly communication since 1940. > > > >The reason why the Academic Freedom/ ‘restricting choice of publication’ > threat(s) is so concerning to the research community has changed over time. > In the past it was essential to be able to publish in specific outlets > because colleagues would only read certain publications. Those publications > were effectively the academic ‘voice’. However today, with online > publication and search engines this argument no longer holds. > > > >What does matter however is the publication in certain journals is > necessary because of the way people are valued and rewarded. The problem is > not open access, the problem is the reward system to which we are beholden. > And the commercial publishing industry is fully aware of this. > > > >So let’s be clear. Academic Freedom is about freedom of expression rather > than freedom of publication outlet and ties into Robert Merton’s 1942 norms > of science <http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf> > which are: > >§ “communalism”: all scientists should have common ownership of > scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective > collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm. > >§ universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical > status/personal attributes of its participants > >§ disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a > common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of > individuals within them > >§ organized scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical > scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes > of conduct. > > > >If a publisher is preventing a researcher from publishing in a journal > based on their funding or institutional policy rather than the content of > the work being submitted then this is entirely in contravention of all of > Robert Merton’s norms of science. But the publisher is not, as it happens, > threatening the Academic Freedom of that author. > > > > > > > > > >Dr Danny Kingsley > >Deputy Director - Scholarly Communication & Research Services > >Head, Office of Scholarly Communication > >Cambridge University Library > >West Road, CB3 9DR > >e: da...@cam.ac.uk<mailto:da...@cam.ac.uk> > >p: 01223 747 437 > >m: 07711 500 564 > >t: @dannykay68 > >w: www.osc.cam.ac.uk<http://www.osc.cam.ac.uk/> > >b: https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk > >o: orcid.org/0000-0002-3636-5939 > > > >[/Users/dak45/Library/Containers/com.microsoft. > Outlook/Data/Library/Caches/Signatures/signature_404167699] > > > Sanford G. Thatcher > Frisco, TX 75034 > https://scholarsphere.psu.edu > > "If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying."-John Ruskin (1865) > > "The reason why so few good books are written is that so few people > who can write know anything."-Walter Bagehot (1853) > > "Logic, n. The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance > with the limitations and incapacities of the human > misunderstanding."-Ambrose Bierce (1906) > > -- Jennifer Heise, jhe...@drew.edu Reference Librarian & Coordinator of Digital Services Drew University Library 973-408-3675 "Comments are free, but facts are on expenses." -- Tom Stoppard
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
