Copyright used to support responsibility for intellectual property

On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Albert Henderson <noblestation[_at_]compuserve.com> wrote:
>
> 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 is unpublished and awaiting evaluation.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).

Scientists who are the first to publish in a peer-reviewed journal forever receive credit in a string of attributions and must maintain responsibility for discovery, whether their work was indeed the initial accumulation of data or derivation of theory. The recent controversy over the discovery of the actual AIDs virus is an example of this problem. Unlike in other fields, scientists are expected to be aware of the functions publishers, editors, peer reviewers, and authors serve because they are expected during their careers to take on many of these functions in some capacity--again a set of responsibilities that respect the body of accumulating knowledge; indeed, the place for formal discussion, revision, advancement, revolution of science is in its literature literally as well as figuratively because long after the scientists disintegrate, the published work and the evolution of knowledge stand.

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

In most scientific fields, review articles are considered secondary sources, that is, accumulations of citations to original sources that merely summarize that author's interpretations and are useful teaching tools; most scientists cite the originals as primary sources in reporting research or in proposing new theory. Review articles listed in a vita do not count for much in judgments of publications for promotion and tenure by fellow scientists/professors because they are not considered to be original contributions of new knowledge to a field. (Robert A. Day in "How to Write and Publish a Scientific Paper", 3rd ed., states flatly on p. 121: "A review paper is not [italics his] an original publication") Similarly, in ethical reviews of scientific publication, review articles may be considered by some to be dual publication of scientific information, that is, scientific knowledge is to be published only once, subsequently cited and discused, revised, etc.

> > 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.

You are correct to state the similarities between use of copyright in arts and entertainment and in science. However, my point is that scientific communities have used copyright protection to go beyond the economic and legal protection arguments used for works of art or entertainment.

First, while the law attributes copyright to whomever first fixes the work, in scientific circles that attribution may not be so: the one who is to be responsibile usually is assigned, often before the work is fixed, to be the manager of the creation of the work and its copyright; the original author may never be recognizable as a creator, and the lead author may not have done any "fixing". This is not the norm for authorship in the arts or entertainment.

Second, in publishing scientific journals or texts, the time limits on copyright support the economic arguments presented for the arts and entertainment--the value added by the journals or publishers as well as their assumed responsibility to provide access to the published information again parallels the purposes of publishers in the arts and entertainment. But in a very practical sense, but not legal sense, a scientific text is published to be in the "public" domain of its community: it is put out there to be shared, criticized, evaluated, revised, that is, used by particular users and whomever else accesses it for the ultimate purpose of advancing the body of scientific knowledge. Copyright has been used in this practical sense not for value added but for upholding responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the information and for publically making available a chain of evidence for that responsibility--for making requests of permission to use published components (or confirming fair use), for upholding standards of attribution, and for acknowleging that those who disseminate the information or grant the permissions have the authority to do so. This is not the norm for access in the arts and entertainment.

Finally, scientists do not receive direct compensation for their publications as artists and entertainers need to do; scientists often pay page charges or graphics charges for publication of their work, and that after a rigorous competition for selection for publication. According to explanations I have read, these are cost-sharing measures. No stigma attaches to these charges, i.e., they are not considered to be "vanity" press publication. This is not the norm for compensation in arts and entertainment.

I could elaborate many more differences, but I hope the point is clearer. (See Council of Biology Editors, "Ethics and Policy in Scientific Publication", 1990; National Research Council, "Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology", 1992; Charles Bazerman and his numerous writings on scientific writing as a social act.) The historical function of copyright in scientific publication went beyond the economic; in meaning, it met the Constitutional test of purpose "to promote the progress of Science": it had preserved the integrity of the accumulated body of scientific knowledge in ways not often recognized in legal debate. That is why, in my opinion, Texaco was such a shock--a publisher became an adversary not a partner, a common practice (archiving primary sources for future use by researchers) became legally questionable; accessability became more difficult; responsibility became suspect--and apparently all these changes were economically driven. Similarly, the arguments on copyright currently discussed in SCIENCE (Sept. 4 and onward) is radical in the history of publishing in scientific communities, and it reflects how the relationship of responsibility for the knowledge with respect to copyright is dividing scientists and publishers.

I am sorry for the length of this response.

CBC Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS
Authors & Editors
2025 NW Monroe Avenue
Corvallis, OR 97330
541-757-0713 (office phone or fax)
541-757-7620 (home)
cbccin[_at_]proaxis.com

Unpublished work Copyright 1998 Cynthia B. Chapman, ELS. Permission granted to reproduce my email messages as long as proper attribution is attached. Received on Mon Dec 07 1998 - 21:35:14 GMT