Re: Coursepacks

Laureen C. Urquiaga <urquiagal[_at_]lawgate.byu.edu> wrote:
>
> Fredrick Rea O'Keefe, "Rick" <fredrick[_at_]tech-center.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, June 27, 1998, Bert Boyce <lsboyc[_at_]lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 6/25/98, Michael A Scarpitti <mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It surprises me to no end that so many academic types find it
> > > > "inconvenient" to pay for rights to works.
> > >
> > > It may have something to do with the fact that the same academics
> > > that want to use these papers are the people who collectively wrote
> > > them and assigned the copyright to a publisher without receiving
> > > payment (in fact sometimes paying the publisher for the privlidge), had
> > > them refereed for quality by other academics who were not paid for their
> > > efforts, and edited by other academics who sometimes get a few travel
> > > dollars to solicit more papers.
> >
> > It's pitiful that academia seems to view the writings of their employees
> > as worthless, hence not worth paying the authors for. As a professional
> > writer, I wouldn't give my work away for free - it's part of my living.
> > Of course, it is strange that the colleges who won't pay academic
> > "types" for their writing will gladly charge a small fortune to students
> > for the privilege of reading those writings (as in mandatory text
> > books).
>
> I "can't" just let this go. Academia does not view the writings of
> employees as worthless, in fact, writing is crucial to things like rank
> advancement and tenure. But unless the writings bring in extra funds
> (research grants, etc.) the employees do not get direct financial
> rewards for writing, they just get to keep their jobs. Journal
> publishers take advantage of the "publish or perish" environment to
> acquire articles at a minimum of cost (usually for free, occasionally
> for a charge which the writer has to pay). Academics are stuck in the
> middle, and especially the ones just starting out who are under the
> greatest pressure to publish have very little leverage with which to
> negotiate contracts (and yet most are probably eeking by on subsistence
> wages). Any wonder why the system is perceived by many as unjust?
> People seem to think that academic institutions are brimming with money,
> and while some few may be ... most are pretty strapped.
>
> In addition, academic libraries effectively subsidize research by
> providing researchers with access to their large collections, and then
> they are expected to pay higher-than-normal journal subscription prices
> to acquire the very research they made possible in the first place. And
> "then" they are supposed to turn around and pay high permission fees to
> those same publishers who gouged the professors and libraries in the
> first place?!? Pretty much the whole system is rigged to favor
> publishers, who are now pushing for legislation that will curtail
> academic activities even further. Small wonder academics look for
> "fair use loopholes"!
>
> And, btw, the people who profit from textbook sales aren't schools but
> the publishers who use high textbook prices to subsidize their other,
> less reliably profitable ventures. And you're right, it IS strange that
> the same entities who don't pay academic authors for their work gladly
> charge students a small fortune for those same writings, but you've
> misidentified the "villains".
>
> PLEASE NOTE: I do know that not all publishers are villains and that
> they play a crucial role in the academic process. But I think the
> system is seriously out of whack and it needs to be corrected. Academic
> institutions are arguably at least partially at fault for letting things
> get so skewed in the first place. But placing additional restrictions
> on fair use or making it even more difficult to obtain access to
> information will benefit neither academia nor the public.

Sorry, but I must disagree with Laureen.

1. Ever notice how many good books are out of print? Want to guess why? Publishers are hardly making a killing. If anything, "popular" books subsidize academic publishing. Oxford could hardly publish so much if it were not for their dictionary and bible business.
2. (Too many?) Academics have an anti-business bias.
3. Too many academics publish hastily, putting out poorly researched, inadequately argued work. I do know this, because I was able to detect errors in several published papers on Kant translation (by so-called Kantian experts), and then performed the research to substantiate that these were indeed errors - which anyone with enough interest and dedication could have done. These have now been published by Semiotica, (at no profit to me, I might add!, but I have no complaint with that) Here at ASNT we do not pay our authors who write Materials Evaluation journal articles.
4. Since the overall cost of publishing is so high, whether or not the author received payment has nothing to do with whether the publisher has a right to collect royalties. It costs money to put the material in the hands of those who want it, and they should have to pay for it.

Michael A Scarpitti
Assistant Editor
Materials Evaluation
1711 Arlingate Lane
PO Box 28518
Columbus, Ohio 43228-0518
800 222-2768 Ext 207
614 274-6003 Ext 207
Fax 614 274-6899
<mscarpit[_at_]asnt.org> Received on Wed Jul 01 1998 - 18:31:56 GMT