Re: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?

TWO messages:

On 10 Sep 1998, Daneil J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
>
> That is a particularly egregious comment from Mr. Bloom. Given the
> apparent policy of Science that it must own the copyright of papers
> submitted to and published by it, I wonder what effect this would
> have on a scientist's ability to publish a follow-up to his or her
> Science-published study.

Publication by SCIENCE would _enhance_ a scientist's ability to DO a followup study and would in no way interfere with the work.

> I also wonder, have any scientists considered boycotting Science as
> a result of its copyright-transfer policy?

SCIENCE is one of the few science journals that does not appear to increase its pages published over periods when the numbers of scientists and the constant dollars spent on academic research doubled. Publication in SCIENCE is widely sought. How would a boycott work?

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com>

On 11 Sep 1998, Bert Boyce <lsboyc[_at_]lsuvm.sncc.lsu.edu> wrote:
>
> On 9/10/98, Daniel J. Schaeffer <daniel_schaeffer[_at_]kirkland.com> wrote:
> >
> > That is a particularly egregious comment from Mr. Bloom. Given the
> > apparent policy of Science that it must own the copyright of papers
> > submitted to and published by it, I wonder what effect this would
> > have on a scientist's ability to publish a follow-up to his or her
> > Science-published study.
> >
> > I also wonder, have any scientists considered boycotting Science as
> > a result of its copyright-transfer policy?
>
> As I have been trying to repeatedly point out, Mr. Bloom's attitude
> and policies are nearly universal in learned literature (academic
> publishing). Thus there is really no where for the scientist to go
> to avoid these policies.

Publication in the journal of choice is an achievement for any scientist. As the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION pointed out, even Bachrach et al. chose SCIENCE and apparently agreed to the transfer of copyright. If self-publishing on the WWW is such a wonderful alternative to attracting the investment of a publisher, why didn't Bachrach and his co-authors simply take that route?

> This is why there is a real problem in scientific communication. The
> scientist does not directly make money on published journal artiicles.
> They enhance reputation and may lead to higher salaries. The author's
> prime interest is wide distribution in order to build reputation, and
> they have been conditioned to give up all their rights in order to see
> themselves in print. The price of the journals, which the academic's
> employer must pay are increasing beyond all reason. We have a growing
> crisis.

The price rises of journals have been reasonable and in keeping with the effects of increased pages and inflation according to studies BY J M Matarazzo (Special Libraries, 1972), H S White and B Fry (Special Libraries 1977) and on to K E Marks et al (College and Research Libraries 1991). My own study of the Periodicals Price Index revealed that it took publishers an average of two years to catch up with an inflationary price spike (Serials Librarian 1992).

Between 1960 and 1995, US academic research activity (measured in constant dollars) increased nearly 7 times. Major ARL libraries spending (also in constant dollars) increased 4 times. This imbalance is clearly the fault of "the academic's employer," not the publisher.

I feel university managers are also short changing the sponsors of research by not living up to responsibilities for "conserving the knowledge of the past" articulated by Vannevar Bush in SCIENCE THE ENDLESS FRONTIER.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Sep 14 1998 - 15:00:15 GMT