Re: Copyrights as Property (Was: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress)

On 04 Nov 1998, Cynthia Chapman <cbccin[_at_]proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> I also have had difficulties. Working backwards from the published
> work, I have come to believe that the relationship between scientific
> publishers and "authors" has evolved partly as gatekeepers of the
> published paper (and then later as profitable gatekeepers) because
> authors are not necessarily the creators -- they are designated to
> be the ones to be held responsible for the knowledge put into the
> fixed form; hence, the publications BECOME the science, are the only
> evidence left of the collaborative intellectual work -- which suggests
> arguments I haven't been able to articulate yet well enought to the
> listserv. Namely, the publications become the work literally -- it
> is not in someONE's head; the body of literature becomes the body of
> knowledge in science, the community's or "public" knowledge.
> Incidently, isn't this what happens to any disciplinary field that
> evolves a body of knowledge that becomes codified over time in
> publications?

I would call the literature more the "work product of research" than the "body of knowledge." Much of the literature, data tables in particular, are accepted as facts until better data can be established with better instruments and better understanding. A great deal of data is unpublished and awaiting evaluation. Much will be discarded as being contaminated by poor instrumentation and methods. Much information is exchanged informally and is never published. The body of knowledge exists in the minds and informal expressions of researchers. Some research will be ahead, in terms of being accepted in the future. Much will be in error, even if published at some time. The judgement of "peer review" is a moving target, as described by W D Garvey in COMMUNICATION - THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE (Pergamon 1979).

This is why review articles, which evaluate and synthesize research findings are generally valued and cited in preference to primary reports.

> Moreover, "author as creator" loses its meaning as discussed by legal
> scholars here, and copyright limited by "lifetime of the author + Xyrs"
> is reduced to the discussion of greed on the part of publishers. What
> is at stake is the integrity of the information, i.e., the knowledge
> fixed in time until it's next revision, traditionally and historically
> preserved by means of copyright.

I don't follow this. Copyright exists in science just as it does in the arts and entertainment. Publishers have an economic role that involves separating signals from noise, talent from inability, etc. They invest and their investments are secured by law. If that is "greed" then maybe all free enterprise, from the family farmer to IBM, is tainted.

Perhaps you would elaborate.

Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Mon Nov 09 1998 - 14:30:33 GMT