Re: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?

On Fri, 4 Sep 1998, Ann Okerson <aokerson[_at_]pantheon.yale.edu> wrote:
>
> If you have been interested in numerous recent discussions about who
> should own articles published in scholarly journals, whether copyright
> should be transferred or publishers instead be licensed by authors, or
> just how we should manage IP ownership in a new-tech era -- you will
> be interested in two pieces in the brand new September 4th issue of
> SCIENCE. It contains a Policy Forum written by a Working Group of
> the American Academy of Arts & Sciences (Transition From Paper)*.
> The Working Group advances a cogent argument that authors of
> scholarly works should retain their copyrights (leaving them free to
> post and distribute their work as they need and want to) while broadly
> licensing publishers to add value to those works and distribute them
> in the value-added mode. They further argue that the U.S. federal
> government, when granting funds for scientific research, mandate the
> authors to retain copyright as a public service -- rather than
> transfer all rights to publishers. The group calls for national
> discussion on these matters. The Policy Forum is illustrated by a
> pointed cartoon drawn by Thelma Pickell of AT&T Bell Labs.
>
> SCIENCE's editor, Dr. Floyd Bloom, replies to these arguments to deny
> publishers full copyright transfer, in an editorial in the same issue.
>
> For online versions, see:
>
> 1. SCIENCE online. Go to the URL below to register. You should
> thereby be able to retrieve both the Forum and the Editorial; however,
> you may be blocked from the latter. If your library has a subscription
> to SCIENCE online, you can get at the editorial that way. Otherwise
> -- consult a print copy.
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/
>
> 2. The LIBLICENSE web site contains a copy of the Policy Forum.
>
> http://www.library.yale.edu/~llicense/POLICYF.HTM

I find much troubling in Bachrach et al. "Who should own scientific papers," which proposes changes in the treatment of authors' rights. (1)

The article begins with a recital of assumptions that I feel are incorrect. The U.S. Copyright Act of 1976, for instance, did not shift "the legal balance of control from publishers to authors" as much as it adulterated authors' "exclusive right to their respective writings" provided by the U.S. Constitution. (2) The legislative validation of "fair use" was compelled by the success of the Xerox model 914 in the 1960s and newfound "needs of users." (3) I believe it was balanced mainly by the extension of authors' rights to match the copyright term widely adopted abroad and the adoption of limits to library photocopying established by the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted works.

Bachrach et al. implies that section 105, which puts works by employees of the U.S. government in the public domain, is new. It is not.

Bachrach et al. also says, "copyright now inheres in a work from the moment it is `fixed in a tangible medium of expression' and by statute belongs initially to the creator." I suggest the word "now" is also misleading.

In a second example, Bachrach et al. states, "the scientist is concerned with sharing new findings..." Sociologist Robert K. Merton more than amply demonstrated that the scientist is concerned first with recognition. (4) Secrecy preceding publication is not uncommon. Bednorz and Mueller, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1987, avoided discussing the true nature of their work even with colleagues at the IBM laboratories where they worked. (5)

Honor begins with attracting investment. The validation of peer review and publication in a recognized journal separate important signals from the noise of informal communications.

Not that informal communications are simply "noise." Informal associations of researchers provide stimulation and insights through oral and written sharing. (6,7) On their own, many scientists circulate preprints and reprints to their personal mailing lists -- a far cry from public disclosure on a web site.

Problems arise when enthusiasm for technology -- rather than the norms of science -- promote administrative initiatives. In the 1960s, such initiatives, by the National Institutes of Health and the American Institute of Physics, aimed to enhance the exchange of informal papers with the aid of mimeograph technology and the U.S. mails. Both failed miserably, not because of technology but because noise drowned out signal as participation increased. (8) Bachrach et al. would undoubtedly achieve a similar effect or worse (A) by blurring the distinction between formal and informal reports; and, (B) as the erosion of exclusivity moved publishers away from research and into more secure professional and applied levels.

In this case, the assault on author-publisher relations also points to the agenda of universities to shed the costs of their libraries. Ms. Okerson, who co-authored the Bachrach et al. article, pointed out in the past that the trend in the statistics of the Association of Research Libraries, representing most of the top Research Universities in North America, points to an end of all collection development purchases by the year 2017, preceded by an end to the purchase of monographs by 2007. (10) Universities have made no move to reverse the trend, even though one would think that science agencies and professional associations would exercise their powers of accreditation and standards. No doubt the present exercise aims to provide a substitute for the day when universities no longer support libraries and librarians at all.

I feel strongly that the proposal is a disservice to science and to the scientists who depend on publishers and university-operated libraries for essential support.

NOTES

1. S. Bachrach, R.S. Berry, M. Blume, T. v. Foerster, A. Fowler,
2. Ginsparg, S. Heller, N. Kestner, A. Odlyzko, A. Okerson,
3. Wigington, A. Moffat. 1998. "Who should own scientific papers?" Science. 285:1459-1460. see online resources above
4. Library of Congress. Jan 1988. Report of the Register of Copyrights. Library Reproduction of Copyrighted Works (17 U.S.C. 108). NTIS PB88-212014.
5. U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. 8, para. 8.
6. Robert K. Merton. 1957. Priorities in scientific discovery. A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review. 22,6 (Dec.):635-659.
7. Hazen, Robert M. 1988. The Breakthrough. The Race for the Superconductor. New York: Summit Books
8. William D. Garvey and Belver C. Griffith. 1967. Scientific communication as a social system. Science. 157:1011-1016.
9. Miles A. Libbey and Geralz Zaltman. 1967. The Role and Distribution of Written Informal Communication in Theoretical High Energy Physics. New York, American Institute of Physics. AIP Report no. AIP/SDD - 1 (rev.). USAEC Report no. NYO - 3732 - 1 (rev.)
10. Philip H. Abelson. 11 Nov. 1966. (Editorial) Information exchange groups. Science. 154:727.
11. Albert Henderson. 1998c. The Incoherence of Science Policy. Society. 35,6 (Sept./Oct.) 38-43.
12. Ann Okerson and Kendon Stubbs. 27 July 1992. Remembrance of things past, present ... and future? Publishers Weekly. 239,34:22-23.

Albert Henderson, Editor
Publishing Research Quarterly
<70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Sep 10 1998 - 22:02:06 GMT