Thanks for the full explanation. Sounds like we are on
the same page. This is not a matter of copyright law.
I have no idea whether the Journals reduce their
policies to a formal contract document signed by all
parties, but the point is that they could. In the
alternative, clarifying the wording of their policies
to reflect that the ban against pre-publication
extends to so called self-archiving would be a fairly
simple matter. I believe this would take most of the
wind out of Mr. Hanard's rhetorical sails - at least
the current version.
Keith
- Albert Henderson <chessNIC[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> The question here has nothing to do with copyright
> or
> contracts. It is an editorial policy -- the wisdom
> of
> rejecting research that was released prematurely --
> by
> certain biomedical publishers. The critics all seek
> to
> "publish first" without regard to whether work has
> been
> reliably reviewed. It would be refreshing to have
> them
> admit it for once. Journal editors have the right to
>
> reject submissions for any reason including failure
> to
> respect their policies.
>
> Airing this issue in the copyright forum only
> demonstrates how confused the advocates of unvetted
> preprints have become. My impression has been that
> their agenda is 'less spending for libraries' no
> matter
> what the cost to public health, the research
> community
> and those who earn their living as a benefit of
> copyright.
>
> The journals that have followed this policy have
> been
> very successful in every sense. They are well-cited
> and
> highly regarded by authors and readers. Their
> imprimateur
> on an article is a mark of prestige. They are more
> than
> sound financially thanks to high circulation and
> robust advertising.
>
> The policy, known as the "Ingelfinger rule" after
> the
> former editor of the New England Journal of
> Medicine,
> has survived despite numerous attempts to blacken
> it.
> The rule asserts that unvetted research claims may
> mislead the health community and the general public
> into ineffective if not unsafe practices.
>
> Authors who wish to be published in presigious
> circumstances comply with the rule. They will not
> talk
> to news reporters or 'self-archive' [a misnomer] in
> advance of publication.
>
> There is no doubt that circulating a paper on a
> well-
> trafficked public preprint server is a form of
> publication,
> even if it does not meet the scholars' use of the
> term as
> denoting recognition and presentation by an
> established
> editorial board. The use of the term "archive" to
> describe
> the act of posting to a server acknowledges the
> intent to
> publish, in imitation of the long established
> "Archives of"
> group of journals.
>
> The open archive movement is an arrogant attempt to
> raise
> the status of informal publication by according
> automated
> servers an invlated status. Its advocates crave to
> stand
> near to publishers whose art and skill depends on
> making
> a sophisticated series of judgments. The movement
> attempts
> to do so, of course, by mythologizing copyrights
> within
> the publishing process, promising authors the moon,
> and
> trading on the ignorance of the learned community
> (most of
> which could not run a candy store) about business.
> For
> example, the use of the term "archive" seeks to
> assure
> authors and readers that "archived" material is not
> ephemeral, in spite of the fact that drafts
> submitted to
> journal editors are often revised before formal
> publication
> or rejected outright. Preprints may be cited.
> Indeed, they
> are cited and may form the basis for new research
> and
> authorship as if they were formally published.
>
> Critics of the embargo policy, all of whom compete
> with the
> policy for authors' attention, haven't a chance.
> With no
> standing with journals' editors, the critics would
> like to
> convince authors to boycott the journals, either by
> defying
> the policy or by shunning such journals in their
> submissions.
> Boycotts by authors are a joke. Authors are more
> interested
> in being recognized by established editors than in
> pursuing
> a utopian vision. Last May, the Chronicle of Higher
> Education
> reported: "Few of the 30,000 scientists who pledged
> to
> boycott journals that don't make their content free
> online
> after six months have actually followed through on
> that
> threat, and few journals have changed their ways."
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Albert Henderson
> Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY
> 1994-2000
> <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>
>
> -------------Forwarded Message-----------------
>
> > OK, so this whole discussion hinges on the
> contract
> > definition of "publication," which can be clearly
> > defined by contract language. Therefore, it has
> little
> > to do with what the academic community believes
> > "publication" means, so long as the publishers
> clearly
> > define what "publication" means in their
> respective
> > contracts.
> >
> > The point of your reply seems to indicate that
> this is
> > not a copyright issue, but a contract issue. I
> think
> > that will make your stance more pallatable to the
> > members of this list - and should clarify to the
> > publishers that they may want to revisit their
> > contract language if they want to avoid hassles
> > involved with enforcing their respective
> > pre-publication rules.
> >
> > Thanks for clarifying.
> >
> > Keith
> >
> > > This is precisely why the copyright law's
> definition
> > > of "publication"
> > > has nothing to do with the researcher's
> definition
> > > of publication, and
> > > it was to the researcher's definition of
> publication
> > > that Gene was
> > > referring; that is the ONLY sense of publication
> > > that has any relevance
> > > whatsoever to what Gene was saying.
> >
>
Yahoo! - We Remember
9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost
http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
Received on Tue Sep 10 2002 - 12:41:37 GMT