tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post1288498227295260309..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Open Access and the NIHWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-62021029575922241782009-02-04T01:06:00.000-05:002009-02-04T01:06:00.000-05:00I have just stumbled on this blog while researchin...I have just stumbled on this blog while researching intellectual property law. I relished in the quality of your writing, the rhythm, the melody of your sentences. Truly poetic prose! I am sorry that the blog is no longer and wish I could read more from you. Thank you..abc.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13516659319907156179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-46827112234167243322008-09-12T15:29:00.000-04:002008-09-12T15:29:00.000-04:00Thanks Bill, its good to know why things are they ...Thanks Bill, its good to know why things are they way they are. <BR/><BR/>Scott, in response to your post on academic papers. . . <BR/>I recently read a great report by BioInformatics, LLC and PJA Advertising + Marketing on how scientists use social media to help them do their jobs, make purchasing decisions, collaborate with other scientists, and much more. In one section of their study, they ask scientists what they think the advantages of Web 2.0 is and one of the things they mention is that using social media to review their papers is, as they see it, an acceptable alternative to the 'peer-review' process. <BR/><BR/>Check out the website here: http://lifesciencesocialmedia.com/ , where the FREE ebook is available for download.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-60846391246460544512008-07-30T17:06:00.000-04:002008-07-30T17:06:00.000-04:00Thank you for commenting on this. I agree with th...Thank you for commenting on this. I agree with the essence of your argument and I love the way you show the hypocrisy of the moral outrage expressed by the STM publishers.<BR/><BR/>For the record, I'm an academic librarian, so it shouldn't be terribly surprising that I feel this way.Arun Sannutihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05862300409359172669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-37773291772508138912008-07-29T17:32:00.000-04:002008-07-29T17:32:00.000-04:00For the record, I have always understood that the ...For the record, I have always understood that the policy only covers published articles; that's why the policy says the deposit has to be made within 12 months of publication, after all.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-45172569989110487972008-07-29T09:31:00.000-04:002008-07-29T09:31:00.000-04:00Thanks Pippa, I appreciate your points more now, b...Thanks Pippa, I appreciate your points more now, but your arguments would be stronger, IMHO, if (1) the STM publisher paid for the peer review, and (2) actually edited the article. But even then, why do you disregard the money that NIH has sunk in? Why shouldn't you flip the analysis and require the publisher, as a condition of publishing the article and charging for the journal, to reimburse NIH for some of NIH's expenses? STM publishers seem quite exercised over articles they pay nothing for being made available to the public, but apparently have no qualms about making money off of research funded by the public. Their moral outrage and accounting seems curiously unidirectional.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-10033178948661199002008-07-29T07:34:00.000-04:002008-07-29T07:34:00.000-04:00William, thanks for your comments. I would agree w...William, thanks for your comments. I would agree with you if NIH wanted the original articles written by authors - but they don't, they want the ones that editors/reviewers/publishers have invested time/effort/money into (to ensure quality of expression and discussion, and selection for publication). Therefore it could be argued they although they are funding research, they are requiring someone else to fund the value-added editing/selection processes whilst still mandating that the end-product (or almost-end!) is made freely available. (But I take your point on the "collection" aspect of a journal not necessarily being affected). Should they not fund the editorial/selection processes?pippasmarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18229129198949451129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-59487295257251630652008-07-28T20:27:00.000-04:002008-07-28T20:27:00.000-04:00Has the Copyright Clearance Center, the world's la...Has the Copyright Clearance Center, the world's largest licensor of STM for publishers, taken a position?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-81713970919521605902008-07-28T16:55:00.000-04:002008-07-28T16:55:00.000-04:00Pippa, I agree with your discussion of the value a...Pippa, I agree with your discussion of the value added by journals for the journal: I was the editor-in-chief of a journal for 12 years, and ran it without an editor. I would like to think I added value of the sort you refer to. But the NIH -Congressionally mandated policy doesn't affect that value at all; the policy is directed only to the articles, which are written by the authors with no input or from or value added by the journal. Nor do disaggregated articles detract from the value created by the journal.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-83027469874150637852008-07-28T13:25:00.000-04:002008-07-28T13:25:00.000-04:00This is an important topic, one which extends far ...This is an important topic, one which extends far beyond government-funded research.<BR/><BR/>It's been often said that many of the traditional copyright industries, necessary in a bygone era where dissemination of copyrighted works required the manufacture and distribution of physical goods in which such works were fixed (journals, books, tapes, CDs), are now superfluous in the digital age--where truckfuls of dead trees are no longer required. Usually this is said of the record and motion picture industries.<BR/><BR/>Probably, though, this observation is most true for academic publishing--for myriad reasons:<BR/><BR/>1) Unlike recorded music, film, or even non-academic book publishing/journalism--authors are not compensated. (And the suggestion that copyright in academic papers is necessary to encourage research is outrageous and risible in the extreme--I know of zero scientists who engage in research in order to profit from the sales of journal articles--as if they could. Textbooks, on the other hand...)<BR/><BR/>2) Outside of peer review, publishers do little to assist the author in preparation of the work. And peer review (again, a volunteer enterprise) can easily be done outside of the rubric of a traditional journal publisher's refereeing process.<BR/><BR/>3) Finally--much of the "meat" of the work of scienctific papers isn't copyrightable anyway. Academic papers certainly are; as they contain the authors' prose intermixed with the actual research results. But the research results themselves are FTMP uncopyrightable ideas and data. <BR/><BR/>The emergence and success of open publishing systems such as CiteSeer aptly demonstrate the point--the traditional academic publisher isn't really necessary. However, old habits do die hard, and some disciplines still insist on a traditional academic publisher's "stamp of approval" before considering a paper worthwhile. And many publishers have responded to the threat to their business model much as Hollywood has--with ever-increasing restrictions on use and dissemination.<BR/>(Others, to their credit, have realized that the gig is up--and that there's plenty of money in other works which are more prose-heavy, such as textbooks and the like).EngineerScottyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11005863528905991434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-866003474367601462008-07-28T11:50:00.000-04:002008-07-28T11:50:00.000-04:00Thanks Bill. Your analysis is dead on, and it is ...Thanks Bill. Your analysis is dead on, and it is important not to lose the history, especially because the compromise in 1976 assumed a regime of optional copyright that the funding agency could choose to waive. (Indeed, federal procurement regulations have not been updated to take account of automatic copyright.)<BR/><BR/>For those with an interest in the nitty gritty copyright details of the policy, see<BR/>http://www.arl.org/sparc/advocacy/nih/copyright.shtml<BR/><BR/>For why this matters,<BR/>http://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2008/02/nih-and-harvard-its-about-values.htmlMichael W. Carrollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05981775917966527311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-5940955433808867612008-07-28T11:34:00.000-04:002008-07-28T11:34:00.000-04:00Whilst I don't disagree with the essence of your p...Whilst I don't disagree with the essence of your piece, I think there are two aspects that you (in common with others who support such mandates as this) miss is that publishers do invest considerable expense in the editorial process, and also risk losing sales if material is available free. To take the first point first. Most publishers fund editorial offices (for managing the article selection process) - they pay editors an honorarium (sometimes substantial), pay for editorial administrative staff, for expenses including expensive sophisticated manuscript tracking systems, and also fund meetings of editorial board members, and the like. For a large biomedical journal this could be a large amount (think $50k, $100k each year). The second point relates to the potential of lost sales. You (correctly) point out that in some areas journals are of little value a year after publication - but this is only true of fast moving areas - in many disciplines the archives are of great value - why else would publishers be investing large amounts in digitising them, and librarians insist on archives when they subscribe? Therefore, making articles free, in a centralised discipline-specific area (e.g. PMC) must risk loss of sales - and to continue in business, publishers need to protect themselves against this.<BR/><BR/>You are right that tax payers should not be required to pay double for the output of research. However my understanding is that funded research outputs should be submitted to the funding body (as evidence of adequately undertaken research) – why don't the taxpayers have access to this? "Articles" that are subsequently written have considerable "added value" - not only added by the authors, but also by the journal publishers – supporting the editorial selection of appropriate content within each journal, and the technological additions (design, linkage, metadata tagging, etc.). For authors, the reward to adding value is (hopefully) publication in a prestigious collection (=journal) that enhances their career and future research funding. For publishers their reward is financial remuneration. (And I am, for the moment, ignoring marketing, production, archiving, etc. that publishers also undertake). Equally, if the content deposited in PMC is different to that published (NIH only stipulates the final accepted article - but there may be subsequent changes before publication), then there may potentially be a version problem – hence the decision of publishers to support final-article deposition. The Wellcome Trust has recognised the inherent problems, and is therefore offering to fund publishers to reward them for adding their own value, and to ensure the continuation of a successful model of journal publishing. <BR/><BR/>However, finally, the issue of copyright is - as you imply - a red herring, and not the crux of the problem (in fact many journals - e.g. the BMJ - allow authors to retain copyright in their articles).pippasmarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18229129198949451129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-10120000034459511142008-07-28T11:33:00.000-04:002008-07-28T11:33:00.000-04:00Thanks, Stevan for the additional links. I found t...Thanks, Stevan for the additional links. I found the links anemic in content, and basically can be reduced to this: the NIH policy is bad, therefore don't blame the APA, blame the NIH. First of all, it is not NIH's policy, it is Congress's. Second, Congress's policy is based on a judgment that publicly funded works should be deposited in public archives; that's why the author's own deposit archive doesn't cut it.William Patryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-84983135842886525132008-07-28T11:01:00.000-04:002008-07-28T11:01:00.000-04:00There is rather more to the APA/NIH story than thi...There is rather more to the APA/NIH story than this. See:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/433-guid.html" REL="nofollow">In Defense of the American Psychological Association's Green OA Policy</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/434-guid.html" REL="nofollow">The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is. PART I.</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/436-guid.html" REL="nofollow">The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is. PART II.</A><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/438-guid.html" REL="nofollow">Alma Swan on "Where researchers should deposit their articles"</A>Stevan Harnadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14374474060972737847noreply@blogger.com