Re: Who Should Own Scientific Papers?

On 09/21/98, Stacey Dogan <s.dogan[_at_]nunet.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> It depends on what the "update" does. If it simply adds a few
> paragraphs to the article or provides minor revisions while maintaining
> the original language and structure, it would be a derivative work (and
> the original author would have to get permission from the publisher).
> If the "update" is really a new article, independently drafted, and
> including the ideas but not the expression of the original work, then
> it would not be a derivative work.
>
> Does anyone have information on how this works in practice? How stingy
> are journals, publishers, etc., about giving authors licenses to prepare
> derivative works based on their own scholarship?

Follow-up work is typically an independently drafted work. New results are presented which may confirm or refute previous conclusions. One of the questions a reviewer is asked to comment on is whether the work is new and significant enough to be published. "Science" actually asks that it not be an extension of a previous work, although this isn't the case for all journals (e.g., an astronomer will do a survey of a patch of sky looking for an object of a particular type and publish this. Three years later, after a second patch of sky is surveyed in the same manner (three or five years is not unreasonable here), she publishes a second paper. This is an extension of the original work and she will refer heavily to the previous paper. Many works are published in a series like this.).

I have not heard of cases where the journal got upset that an author was basing current work on previous work, but scientists are worried that the new database legislation will instigate such problems (e.g., In my tiny little subfield, I have seen the same list of objects and their characteristics appear in about a quarter of the literature (90% of the review papers) with the only changes being a new star or three added to the list.). I have not heard of a publisher getting upset at this, but I have dealt with academic society publishers in a small and non-profit making field. The for-profit publishers in this field (e.g., Nature or Science), might make a fuss, but I have no experience here.

There are cases when a scientist will read the published work and say "Ooops, that wasn't the right number, I seemed to have transposed those two digits," or some such thing. In this case, an erratum will be submitted and published. This is typically a few lines or a page at most and refers to the initial work. It does not repeat the original work.

I hope this was helpful and answered the questions.

                              Angela Putney

                              Angela Putney, Ph.D.
                              Physics Management Fellow
                              American Institute of Physics
                              One Physics Ellipse
                              College Park, MD 20740

                              Phone:  301-209-3135
                              Fax:    301-209-3133
                              E-mail: aputney[_at_]aip.org