On 07 Dec 1998, Cynthia Chapman <cbccin[_at_]proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> 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 is unpublished and awaiting evaluation.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")
You might agree with the following quotation:
"It is well known (Garfield, 1994) that generally review journals have high impact factors. Yet, citations to review articles have a negative consequence for those authors, who published the original articles on the subject. Indeed, it could be considered an injustice." R Rousseau and G v Hooydonk. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE 47:775-780, 1996. In practice, authors cite reviews heavily. Rousseau and Hooydonk's impact factor groupings put reviews above the "norm" and translations below it.
> 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.
This view counters the advice of experts traceable to 1948 when the Royal Society convened an international congress on scientific information and praised the value of review articles. C Herring summed up the contribution of reviews to research productivity in PHYSICS TODAY Sept 1968. The massive growth of research created demand for reviews, digests, indexes, etc., because scientists do not have the time to survey all relevent research at the primary report level. Indeed, a Canadian task force seeking to evaluate the scientific evidence on a single topic screened over 10,000 cites and read nearly 300 articles to distill the 62 contributions of scientific merit published since 1980.
Reviews evaluate lines of research in more depth than primary reports, which seem to only to provide a foundation for new laboratory, clinical, or field work. A review article or monograph may define a field of research or test the scientific evidence underlying clinical practices. One publisher, started during the depression, publishes nothing but reviews and calls itself ANNUAL REVIEWS. More recently we have seen discussions of "metadata," being the aggregated statistical data from multiple studies analyzed to obtain findings not available from any one.
> > > 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.
Yes but the text is not in the public domain for the purpose of selling it. Photocopies made to substitute for sales infringe, as Texaco and Kinko's found out.
> 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.
Scientists obtain validation and dissemination of their work in exchange for a transfer of copyright. While you may not believe this is not the norm in arts and entertainment, I can tell you there are plenty of artists and writers who exchange their work for exposure and who may subsidize production. The difference is the scientist will probably not quit his / her day job to write or make music.
The innovation of scientific page charges was aimed at selling subscriptions during the Depression. I wouldn't be surprised if historians were able to tie it to WPA and CCC ideas. Only a few journals in the U.S. continue to bill for page charges. It is a Federal program long overdue for the dustbin. I only wonder why the Republican majority hasn't figured this out.
> 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,
Strong measures are needed when you find your partner stealing. The idea of the administrator as a "silent partner" in the scientific community needs looking at by Merton's successors.
> 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.
The Bachrach et al. overture reproduced in SCIENCE (and other proposals found in the CHRONICLE OF HIGHER ED., NATURE, etc.) is aimed at reducing universities' library spending -- nothing else. It was outlined in ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES RESEARCH LIBRARIES PROJECT REPORTS OF THE AAU TASK FORCES. (Association of Research Libraries, 1994) The text of this document traces its origins to 1991. I would guess from its references it goes back to the ARL SERIAL PRICES PROJECT (ARL 1989) with its infamous anonymous economists attempting to analyze publishers' profits 'sans data' and its similarly unfounded attacks on scientists for excessive publishing.
Unfortunately, "the relationship of responsibility for the knowledge" is on its last legs, as I recently wrote in AGAINST THE GRAIN (Nov 1998: 24-25) Op-Ed on the death of knowledge.
Albert Henderson, Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY <70244.1532[_at_]compuserve.com> Received on Thu Dec 10 1998 - 02:51:17 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:33 GMT