informis
/
textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/magazines/PACS/rev04.04

1194 lines
54 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

+ Page 1 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review
Volume 4, Number 4 (1993) ISSN 1048-6542
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To retrieve an article file as an e-mail message, send the GET
command given after the article information to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1
(BITNET) or LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU (Internet). To retrieve the
article as a file, omit "F=MAIL" from the end of the GET command.
CONTENTS
COMMUNICATIONS
Model University Policy Regarding Faculty Publication in
Scientific and Technical Scholarly Journals: A Background Paper
and Review of the Issues
By TRLN Copyright Policy Task Force (pp. 4-25)
To retrieve this file: GET TRLN PRV4N4 F=MAIL
The basic problem with the current scholarly journal system is
the incompatibility between the non-economic goals of academic
researchers and the largely economic goals of commercial and even
some not-for-profit publishers. When authors of scholarly
journal articles assign their copyright to commercial publishers,
they also give away the ability to control the conditions under
which their research results are disseminated. This paper
discusses the current system's problems and shares a vision for a
more positive future. It includes a model copyright policy that
would keep the ownership and control of scholarly information in
the hands of research scholars and their institutions, thus
ensuring that their publications can be widely distributed
electronically at the lowest possible costs.
COLUMNS
Public-Access Provocations: An Informal Column
Trust Us
By Walt Crawford (pp. 26-28)
To retrieve this file: GET CRAWFORD PRV4N4 F=MAIL
+ Page 2 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief
Charles W. Bailey, Jr.
University Libraries
University of Houston
Houston, TX 77204-2091
(713) 743-9804
LIB3@UHUPVM1 (BITNET) or LIB3@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU (Internet)
Associate Editors
Columns: Leslie Pearse, OCLC
Communications: Dana Rooks, University of Houston
Reviews: Roy Tennant, University of California, Berkeley
Editorial Board
Ralph Alberico, University of Texas, Austin
George H. Brett II, Clearinghouse for Networked Information
Discovery and Retrieval
Steve Cisler, Apple Computer, Inc.
Walt Crawford, Research Libraries Group
Lorcan Dempsey, University of Bath
Nancy Evans, Pennsylvania State University, Ogontz
Charles Hildreth, University of Washington
Ronald Larsen, University of Maryland
Clifford Lynch, Division of Library Automation,
University of California
David R. McDonald, Tufts University
R. Bruce Miller, University of California, San Diego
Paul Evan Peters, Coalition for Networked Information
Mike Ridley, University of Waterloo
Peggy Seiden, Skidmore College
Peter Stone, University of Sussex
John E. Ulmschneider, North Carolina State University
Technical Support
Tahereh Jafari, University of Houston
+ Page 3 +
Publication Information
Published on an irregular basis by the University Libraries,
University of Houston. Technical support is provided by the
Information Technology Division, University of Houston.
Circulation: 7,386 subscribers in 56 countries (PACS-L) and 1,981
subscribers in 50 countries (PACS-P).
Back issues are available from LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 (BITNET) or
LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU (Internet). To retrieve a cumulative
index to the journal, send the following e-mail message to the
LISTSERV: GET INDEX PR F=MAIL.
The first two volumes of The Public-Access Computer Systems
Review are also available in book form from the American Library
Association's Library and Information Technology Association
(LITA). Volume three is forthcoming. The price of each volume
is $17 for LITA members and $20 for non-LITA members. To order,
contact: ALA Publishing Services, Order Department, 50 East Huron
Street, Chicago, IL 60611-2729, (800) 545-2433.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal that is distributed on BITNET, Internet, and other
computer networks. There is no subscription fee.
To subscribe, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1
(BITNET) or LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU (Internet) that says:
SUBSCRIBE PACS-P First Name Last Name. PACS-P subscribers also
receive three electronic newsletters: Current Cites, LITA
Newsletter, and Public-Access Computer Systems News.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C)
1993 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All
Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by academic
computer centers, computer conferences, individual scholars, and
libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their
collection, in electronic or printed form, at no charge. This
message must appear on all copied material. All commercial use
requires permission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 26 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Public-Access Provocations: An Informal Column
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford, Walt. "Trust Us." The Public-Access Computer Systems
Review 4, no. 4 (1993): 26-28. To retrieve this file, send the
following e-mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 or
LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU: GET CRAWFORD PRV4N4 F=MAIL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Buckland and other researchers at the University of
California at Berkeley have been doing some interesting research
with an experimental front-end to the MELVYL system, looking at
ways to improve user success with online catalogs. Buckland
suggested some changes to improve retrieval during a program on
"The Evolving Online Catalogs," sponsored by the LITA Online
Catalogs Interest Group at the 1993 ALA Annual Conference in New
Orleans; he's also published various findings and suggestions.
According to Xiao-Yan Shen's report on Buckland's talk (in
the Fall 1993 LITA Newsletter, page 21):
In order to make better use of existing catalog records we
should have more powerful commands such as FEWER and
SUMMARIZE. FEWER limits the size of retrieved sets by
assuming reasonable default preferences--e.g.: find subject
napoleon might retrieve 4,580 hits. Successive uses of
FEWER might do the following:
-limit to Berkeley holdings (2,259)
-limit to English-language (853)
-limit to last 10 years (73)
-limit to last 3 years (30)
-limit to books (26)
SUMMARIZE finds all the subject headings in all
retrieved records and lists them by their frequencies.
MORE finds more books with the same author or subject.
Tossing Fish to the Users
There's not a lot to say about MORE or SUMMARIZE. I can't
imagine that you'd offer MORE without asking WHICH author or
subject, which means it's the same related-record function that
Dynix has had for roughly a decade, and is also in Unicorn,
Eureka, and several other systems.
+ Page 27 +
My problem is with FEWER--not with the idea of reducing
search results by offering plausible limits. That's a fine idea,
and one that should be suggested (or at least offered as help)
whenever a result exceeds some defined number of records. We do
that in Eureka (RLG's new patron-oriented search service), and so
do a fair number of other systems.
What we don't do (and this is what I question) is give users
an option like FEWER and simply apply some predefined set of
limits, one at a time. That's tossing them fish, in the old
adage. I prefer to teach them how to fish: show them what limits
are available and how to use them and let the users decide what
limits make sense.
I don't mean to pick on Michael Buckland (although he's
certainly able to defend himself). I think what he's suggesting
is one common trend in hot new search-system design: giving the
users "what they need" without telling them how they got it.
Trust and Skepticism
One crucial part of "information literacy," although it isn't
mentioned much, is skepticism. People still tend to assume that
if it comes from a computer (or if it comes from the Internet),
it must be right--a disturbing and potentially dangerous
assumption.
In this instance, it's important for users to be able to
understand how they are reducing the size of their results, as
well as the implications of those reductions. Using the example
above, is it really fair to assume that books about Napoleon
written since 1990 are really more suitable than those written
earlier? Why would that be true? If newer automatically means
better, then I assume that the newest biography of Robert Kennedy
is the best one--right?
And if a user is looking for material by The Beatles and
uses this set of FEWERs, he or she will be a bit dismayed by the
results, which include none of the recordings, none of the
movies, but probably some discographies or fairly arcane books
about some aspects of the group's career.
But look at the example again and explore it a bit in online
catalogs. The worst problem here is that "Napoleon" as a subject
search is pretty awful. In Eureka, it returns more than 1,000
subject headings as a word search and only four titles as a
phrase search. So, if you've narrowed this collection down, what
are these books about? Jose Napoleon Duarte? Napoleon Lajoie
(American League batting champion in 1901, 1902, and 1904)?
Napoleon, Ohio? The Code Napoleon? Napoleon II or III? Or,
most probably, Napoleon I?
+ Page 28 +
Have we really done the borrower a favor by turning a poor
search into an arbitrarily small result, one that may or may not
have much to do with what's wanted? Not in my book. Sorry, but
I don't trust computer-controlled choices, and I don't think
others should either.
About the Author
Walt Crawford, The Research Libraries Group, Inc., 1200 Villa
Street, Mountain View, CA 94041-1100. Internet:
BR.WCC@RLG.STANFORD.EDU.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal that is distributed on BITNET, Internet, and other
computer networks. There is no subscription fee.
To subscribe, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1
(BITNET) or LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU (Internet) that says:
SUBSCRIBE PACS-P First Name Last Name. PACS-P subscribers also
receive three electronic newsletters: Current Cites, LITA
Newsletter, and Public-Access Computer Systems News.
This article is Copyright (C) 1993 by Walt Crawford. All
Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C)
1993 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All
Rights Reserved.
Copying is permitted for noncommercial use by academic
computer centers, computer conferences, individual scholars, and
libraries. Libraries are authorized to add the journal to their
collection, in electronic or printed form, at no charge. This
message must appear on all copied material. All commercial use
requires permission.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
+ Page 4 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRLN Copyright Policy Task Force. "Model University Policy
Regarding Faculty Publication in Scientific and Technical
Scholarly Journals: A Background Paper and Review of the Issues."
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review 4, no. 4 (1993): 4-25.
To retrieve this file, send the following e-mail message to
LISTSERV@UHUPVM1 or LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU: GET TRLN PRV4N4
F=MAIL.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1.0 Introduction
The attached model policy was drafted by a joint committee of
faculty, librarians, and university press editors from Duke
University, North Carolina State University, and the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [1] This effort is part of a
two-year project of the Triangle Research Libraries Network
(TRLN) to develop strategies and plans for cooperative
information resources development in the sciences and
engineering. Grant support for the project has been provided by
the Council on Library Resources in Washington, D.C.
The distribution of this policy document is intended to
stimulate debate and consensus building among faculty,
librarians, university administrators, and scholarly publishers
throughout the United States and abroad. The TRLN Copyright
Policy Task Force does not expect that such a policy will be
adopted unilaterally by any one institution. Rather, we believe
the eventual widespread adoption of such a policy by consortia or
national associations of universities could help to reduce the
current barriers to the effective dissemination of new research,
especially in science and engineering scholarly journals.
Since the widespread distribution of the first draft of this
model university policy regarding faculty publication in
scholarly journals, the Task Force has received dozens of letters
and electronic mail messages with both positive and negative
reactions to the model, many offering specific suggestions to
change, clarify, or improve the policy. While the majority of
those writing supported the thrust of the proposed policy and
encouraged the Task Force to find ways to work towards its
adoption by universities, a substantial minority expressed
concerns about specific features of the policy or a confusion
about the problems being addressed and the goals to be achieved.
+ Page 5 +
With this paper the Task Force seeks to clarify its view of
the problems which the current system of scholarly communication
through journals is causing and to share a vision for a future
where these problems are removed or, at least, alleviated. In
the process, this essay will also respond to the primary
criticisms received regarding the first draft of the model
policy. Finally, with this paper the Task Force is distributing
a model policy document incorporating many of the specific
suggestions it received for improvement.
2.0 The Current Scholarly Journal Publishing System
University and other national research libraries have supported
and helped to fuel the astounding growth in scientific and
technical research, both by serving as the primary locus for the
dissemination of new research results and as comprehensive
archives for access to the historical record of past research.
However, the numbers and prices of scholarly journals, especially
that portion published in scientific and technical disciplines,
have increased at annual rates that far exceed general rates of
inflation and the acquisitions budget resources of research
libraries. The result is that, individually and collectively,
research libraries are acquiring a smaller and smaller proportion
of the world's published research and the balance of these
acquisitions has been skewed away from books to pay the spiraling
cost of journals.
The unrelenting growth in both numbers and prices of
scientific and technical journals has also exacerbated
distortions in the general economic marketplace for research
information. This marketplace, unlike the free market ideal
posited by economic theorists, is characterized by producers
(academic researchers) who give over gratis, through copyright
transfer, the ownership of their products (journal articles) to
sellers (both not-for-profit and commercial publishers).
Publishers, in turn, cover costs or earn profits by selling, not
primarily to the ultimate consumers (other researchers and their
students), but largely to public or not-for-profit agencies
(research libraries) who are responsible for organizing, storing,
and providing free or low-cost access to these products. As
Herbert White, then dean of the Indiana University School of
Library and Information Science, said, "natural selection and the
pressures of the marketplace simply do not apply here." [2]
+ Page 6 +
An increasing percentage of scientific and technical
journals are now published, not by professional societies and
universities, but by a relatively small number of very large
commercial publishing conglomerates, many based in Europe. At
the same time, the subscriber base of many of these journals has
shifted so that it is now almost exclusively research libraries
rather than individual research scholars. And, as many
economists have noted, this growing for-profit journal publishing
industry presents almost ideal conditions for an effective
monopoly:
A. Libraries are reluctant to cancel subscriptions when
the prices go up (they have a low "price elasticity of
demand" for these products) because there are few if
any alternative sources for the information contained
in each journal.
B. The small number of publishers relative to the number
of library subscribers permits more control of supply
than in a more competitive industry.
C. Many opportunities exist for price discrimination,
between institutions and individuals as well as between
U.S. and European subscribers, based on differing price
elasticities of demand and currency fluctuations.
Feeding this publishing industry is an academic tenure and grants
system which rewards researchers with grants and career
advancement when they publish large numbers of papers. [3] In
trade and mass market publishing, both authors and publishers
feel encouraged or constrained by the forces of the economic
marketplace; both recognize the potential value of profits to be
earned from sales, future film rights, etc., with these
intellectual "properties." Thus, authors in this more commercial
environment reasonably transfer only limited rights to publishers
and negotiate royalties. By contrast, in scholarly journal
article publishing, authors do not assume they will earn any
direct economic rewards from their articles, so they "make a
contribution" to the literature by freely assigning all ownership
rights to publishers.
+ Page 7 +
The basic problem in the current system for publishing
scholarly journal articles, therefore, is incompatibility between
the non-economic goals of academic researchers and the largely
economic goals of commercial and even some not-for-profit
publishers. Academic researchers publish with the goals of
ensuring widespread distribution of their research results,
personal credit and recognition, and career advancement. Many
commercial publishers create and market journals with the sole
goals of identifying potentially profitable market niches or
monopolies for their products. The recent growth and market
power of several very large international publishing corporations
have brought into focus the distortions and potential dangers
when commercial interests intrude too heavily into the
international channels of scholarly communication.
In an indirect but important and fundamental way, copyright
practices in scholarly publishing aggravate the marketplace
monopoly distortions caused by the growth of the large for-profit
scientific and technical journal publishing conglomerates. When
authors of scholarly journal articles assign copyright in their
intellectual property to commercial publishers, they also give
away the ability to control the conditions under which their
research results are disseminated. For this reason, the Task
Force believes a first step towards controlling the spiraling
costs of scientific and technical journals is to bring the
products produced (the articles) back under the control of the
producers (the research scholars and their universities).
The Task Force hopes the above brief statement of the
problem is helpful. For a more complete understanding of the
scientific and technical journal pricing problem and its various
ramifications for research libraries and the entire scholarly
communication system, see the articles and books listed in the
bibliography at the end of this paper.
+ Page 8 +
3.0 Reforming the Current System
This model university policy is just one part of a whole series
of changes needed in the current system of scholarly
communication through journals. A major hurdle to be surmounted
is the considerable investment all participants have in
perpetuating the current system. Scholarly journals have been
published according to essentially the same rules and in
essentially the same format for well over 200 years. Returning
ownership and control of research results to the individuals and
institutions who generate them in the first place is a critical
first step in moving towards a future where research results are
peer reviewed and then disseminated electronically to the
worldwide scholarly community at reasonable costs. Research
universities with their research libraries and presses as well as
national and international associations of scholars in the
various scientific and technical disciplines should be working
together closely as partners. This will help to ensure that
research results are disseminated at reasonable cost to those who
need it. Researchers and all other participants in the scholarly
communication system must come to a clearer understanding of and
consensus about the fundamental goals of scholarly communication.
These fundamental goals can be reduced to three:
1. To ensure that the worldwide community of researchers
has rapid, convenient access at reasonable cost to the
validated results of all relevant research.
2. To assure researchers and students seeking information
about research results in any discipline that the
results "published" have been carefully reviewed by
peer experts to meet high research quality standards
and then carefully edited for clear and accurate
presentation.
3. To ensure that future generations of researchers will
have undistorted, convenient access at reasonable cost
to the results of important research conducted today
and in the past.
+ Page 9 +
What, then, would be characteristics of the ideal scholarly
communication system of the future? The Task Force suggests the
following key ingredients:
A. Initial publication of peer-reviewed and edited
research results would be in journals supported by
universities, scholarly associations, or other
organizations sharing the mission to promote
widespread, reasonable-cost access to research
information.
B. Electronic publication via the publicly supported
portion of the worldwide Internet would be the
preferred means for most disciplines.
C. Research libraries would remain the primary access
nodes and archival repositories for print and
electronic collections of published research results.
D. Some publishers would be licensed by individual
researchers, university presses, and scholarly
associations primarily to publish special compilations,
indexes, or other value-added products for sale where
potentially profitable markets exist for these
secondary, value-added information resources.
E. The technical systems and scholarly communication
policies needed to support this new scholarly
communication system would grow out of consensus
deliberations and collaboration among associations of
research libraries, research universities and their
publishing arms, and societies or associations of
researchers in the various scientific and technical
disciplines.
+ Page 10 +
4.0 Criticism of the Original TRLN Model Policy
The critical responses received after distribution of the
original version of the model policy fit roughly into four broad
themes:
1. Individual retention of copyright and the granting of
blanket permission for noncommercial reproduction of
articles for educational and research purposes, if
applied indiscriminately to all publishers, would also
threaten the revenues of university and association
not-for-profit publishers, who should be seen as allies
in the struggle to control escalating journal costs.
2. Retention of copyright by academic researchers will not
by itself change the pricing practices of commercial
publishers.
3. Retention of copyright would place undue burdens on
individual researchers. They would struggle to find
suitable low-cost publication outlets for their
articles and would have to respond to many requests to
use or reproduce their published articles.
4. Retention of copyright by authors could impede efforts
by publishers to license complete collections of
articles for electronic distribution via compact disks
or over national and international networks.
The remainder of this paper describes how the model university
policy and the recommendations above respond to these criticisms.
+ Page 11 +
4.1 The Policy Would Hurt Not-for-Profit Publishers
University, association, and other not-for-profit publishers are
essential to effective scholarly communication and, in fact, need
to be strengthened to become once again the primary locus of
scientific and technical journal publishing. These scholarly
publishers should be partners with research libraries in the
struggle to control the escalating costs of scientific and
technical journals. The model policy now makes clear the
positive role that not-for-profit publishers, and others whose
subscription prices are rationally related to the actual costs of
journal production, have played and should continue to play in
providing widespread distribution of research results at
reasonable costs. Research published by university and most
association presses remains essentially within the community of
university research scholars and, thus, under university control.
No change in current copyright transfer practices is needed with
these scholarly presses because they share the fundamental values
of university-based scholarly research and a common vision for
the future of scholarly communication.
Some critics noted that research universities (unlike the
commercial publishing conglomerates) are capital-poor and, thus,
in a poor position to compete for the scientific and technical
scholarly journal market. [4] As the transformation to a
worldwide electronic network for scientific communication
accelerates, however, the billions of dollars currently tied up
in university research library subscriptions, binding, and
storage could be freed to provide the necessary capital. It is
also important to note that university faculty and computer
centers are largely responsible for the growth and development of
the Internet as we know it today. Thus, universities are
well-positioned to manage and make efficient use of this
scholarly communication infrastructure of the future. But to do
so they must seize the initiative. The Task Force hopes the
model policy will help to convince university faculty and
administrators of the need to take these matters seriously.
+ Page 12 +
4.2 The Policy Will Not Change Publishers' Pricing Practices
Adoption of the model policy by large numbers of universities
should help to reestablish the central role of the university and
not-for-profit association presses in scientific and technical
scholarly journal publishing. Provided that the policy is
accompanied by major efforts to strengthen university-based
publishing, as recommended throughout this document, the policy
can help to foster the growth of alternative outlets for
publication of research results. As one respondent noted, many
commercial and not-for-profit journal publishers already give
authors the option of retaining copyright for their articles.
These publishers, however, also usually specify in a license
agreement the publisher's right to republish or to permit others
(with or without the payment of fees) to republish or translate
the work. The Task Force argues that retention of copyright is a
necessary precondition for the scholarly research community
collectively to strengthen existing mechanisms or to develop
alternative low-cost mechanisms for the dissemination of research
results.
Keep in mind the basic purpose of the scholarly journal
communication system for the creators and ultimate consumers of
the articles published: to validate the quality of research
results, edit them, and make them available to the worldwide
community of researchers for use in further research and
teaching. Only by individually and collectively reestablishing
control over the raw materials they produce will research
scholars be able to work together with libraries and publishers
to ensure a scholarly communication system that addresses the
basic goal of widespread, low-cost dissemination of peer reviewed
research results, rather than acceptable profit margins for
commercial publishing conglomerates.
One possible result of general retention of copyright by
authors could be a reduction of both commercial and not-for-
profit publishers' revenues, without a concomitant reduction in
their expenses. This decline in revenues could occur both
through a reduction of the subsidiary income currently earned by
some publishers from the granting of permission for reproduction
of articles and through a reduction of the number of their
journal subscribers. This would be especially true where access
to journal articles becomes readily available through online
electronic networks rather than the current system of print
journal subscriptions.
+ Page 13 +
Adoption of the model policy by large numbers of
universities should help to reestablish the central role of
university and not-for-profit association presses in scientific
and technical scholarly journal publishing and also to strengthen
their financial health. Universities and their faculty must be
able to meet their responsibilities to society as well as to
present and future generations of researchers in and out of
academia worldwide. Without ready access to the published
results of university research, research progress would simply
not be possible. Only by retaining copyrights within the
academic community of research scholars, can those who generate
the research results maintain an effective system of scholarly
communication that meets the information needs of research
scholars and their students.
4.3 The Policy Will Put Too Many Burdens on Research Faculty
If individual faculty, unsupported by their institutions and
professional associations, immediately attempt to follow the
guidelines outlined in this policy, they would almost certainly
find it more difficult to locate appropriate publication outlets
for their research results. But when and if the policy becomes
standard practice in most academic settings and suitable
electronic or print alternatives to commercially published
journals are available, then publication will hinge on the
quality and originality of the research results submitted for
"publication," rather than on the marketplace viability (i.e.,
profitability) of particular journals. The international
computer and telecommunications networks, with their growing
capacity and pervasiveness in research settings, hold great
promise as the preferred mechanism for most scholarly
communication. In the sciences and technology, electronic
journals, with worldwide network access mechanisms, eventually
will replace traditional print-on-paper journals, especially if
these networks are managed to preserve low-cost access for
scholarly communication purposes.
+ Page 14 +
As for the criticism that the policy would force researchers
to respond to large numbers of requests to use or reproduce their
articles, this issue is specifically addressed with the model
policy stipulation that authors, who are unable to locate a
university, society, association or other suitable publication
channel, insist that a notice be included as a footnote on the
first page of the article giving blanket permission "for the
noncommercial reproduction of the complete work for educational
or research purposes." Thus, routine copying of articles for
classroom use in courses and for interlibrary loan would be
permitted without the need to request permission from the author.
Faculty authors may also want to consider contractual agreements
that give the publisher a nonexclusive right to sell licenses, at
agreed-upon reasonable rates to commercial copy services such as
Kinko's and Copytron which produce "course packs" of photocopied
articles for sale to students for specific university courses.
The Task Force also recommends that universities explore
ways of providing advice, support, and managerial services for
handling copyright and permissions matters on behalf of their
faculty (or association members), perhaps in collaboration with a
local university press. This is a vital element in any system
that would make it possible to bypass some publishers on
permissions matters. There is an excellent non-commercial reason
for publishers, universities, or associations to manage faculty
copyrights in scholarly journal articles: an institution is
readily findable by a permissions requestor, because its address
is listed in the journal and if it moves it leaves a clear trail.
The author in a great many cases is not findable at all, or only
at the cost of an enormous amount of work.
4.4 The Policy Would Impede Electronic Distribution
The Task Force disagrees with the notion that the distribution of
research articles by means of CD-ROM or over national and
international electronic networks would be impeded if the model
university policy were widely adopted. The Task Force is far
more concerned about the threat of commercial ownership and
control of scholarly information in the networked electronic
environment of the future. [5] As early as the mid-1980s Carlton
Rochell pointed out that even browsing can be curtailed where
electronically stored information is only available for a fee.
Paying for access to a database of journal articles means:
The user is required to pay to look at it to judge its
relevance. . . . a relatively new commercial principle not
too far applied in other sections of the information
industry, for example bookshops. . . . it is also not
applied in other industries. Imagine paying for the right
to look--just look--at Ford's . . . [new] models. [6]
+ Page 15 +
This model policy aims to keep the ownership and control of
scholarly information in the hands of research scholars and, by
extension, the universities and other not-for-profit agencies
that support scientific and technical research for the public
good. It would preserve the right of research scholars to ensure
that their original publications can be widely distributed
electronically at the lowest possible costs. This does not
preclude the possibility that commercial publishers could be
licensed to create publications or databases that add value to
the articles as first distributed and then market these to
libraries, other agencies, or individual researchers themselves.
The situation is analogous to that of information generated by
U.S. federal government agencies. The Government Printing Office
(GPO) and the National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
ensure that this information is made widely available to citizens
through depository programs with research libraries and at-cost
sales of copies directly to citizens. At the same time,
commercial publishers such as the Congressional Information
Service take profitable advantage of the right to repackage and
add value to this information in print and electronic products
which they sell to libraries and other businesses.
The policy proposed here suggests a fundamental change in
the current practice whereby faculty routinely transfer copyright
for their scientific and technical journal articles to
publishers. Instead, widespread adoption of this model policy
would encourage and support universities and their faculty to
develop partnerships with publishers like the not-for-profit
university and association presses which are also committed to
maintaining a scholarly communication system which provides for
reasonable-cost access to the published results of all research.
As pointed out in a recent discussion of scholarly publishing in
The Chronicle of Higher Education, [7] only the copyright owner
can decide whether scholarly publications are treated primarily
as knowledge to be shared or as a commodity to be sold for a
profit.
In trade and mass market publishing, such as novels,
textbooks, and popular magazines, authors recognize the economic
value of their intellectual property and transfer limited rights
to publishers so they will earn royalties. In scholarly journal
publishing, by contrast, authors freely assign their ownership
rights to publishers. The irony here is that university
libraries are being forced to pay spiraling subscription costs
for information created and given away by faculty whose research
was supported largely by public grants and these same university
library resources.
The Copyright Policy Task Force of the Triangle Research
Libraries Network believes that if many universities adopted the
model policy, the ultimate result would be a more rational and
productive worldwide scholarly communication system.
+ Page 16 +
Notes
1. This paper previously appeared in the Newsletter on Serials
Pricing Issues in numbers 93 and 94 of the 1993 volume. This
electronic newsletter is archived at LISTSERV@GIBBS.OIT.UNC.EDU.
2. Herbert S. White, "Scholarly Publishers and Libraries: A
Strained Marriage," Scholarly Publishing 19 (April 1988): 127.
3. Herbert White, "Scholarly Publication, Academic Libraries, and
the Assumption That These Processes Are Really Under Management
Control," College & Research Libraries 54, no. 4 (1993): 293-301.
4. Scott Bennett, "Copyright and Innovation in Electronic
Publishing: A Commentary," The Journal of Academic Librarianship
19 (May 1993): 87-91.
5. Christopher Anderson, "The Rocky Road to a Data Highway,"
Science 260 (21 May 1993): 1064-65.
6. Carlton Rochell, "The Knowledge Business: Economic Issues of
Access to Bibliographic Information," College & Research
Libraries 46, no. 1 (1985): 6.
7. Scott Bennett and Nina Matheson, "Scholarly Articles: Valuable
Commodities for Universities," The Chronicle of Higher Education,
27 May 1992, B1-B3.
Bibliography
Anderson, Christopher. "The Rocky Road to a Data Highway."
Science 260 (21 May 1993): 1064-65.
Barshall, Henry H. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Physics Journals."
Physics Today 41 (July 1988): 56-59.
Bennett, Scott. "Copyright and Innovation in Electronic
Publishing: A Commentary." The Journal of Academic Librarianship
19 (May 1993): 87-91.
Bennett, Scott, and Nina Matheson. "Scholarly Articles: Valuable
Commodities for Universities." The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 27 May 1992, B1-B3.
Byrd, Gary D. "An Economic `Commons' Tragedy for Research
Libraries: Scholarly Journal Publishing and Pricing Trends."
College & Research Libraries 51, no. 3 (1990): 184-95.
+ Page 17 +
Carrigan, Dennis P. "Publish or Perish: The Troubled State of
Scholarly Communication." Scholarly Publishing 22 (April 1991):
131-42.
Feinman, Stephen. "Regulation of the STI Industry: A Historical
Basis and Some Possibilities." In Information Services:
Economics, Management and Technology, eds. Robert M. Mason and
John E. Creps, Jr., 39-62. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1981.
Fry, Bernard M., and Herbert S. White. Impact of Economic
Pressures on American Libraries and Their Decisions Concerning
Scholarly and Research Journal Acquisition and Retention.
Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, June 1978. National
Technical Information Service, PB 283874.
Hewitt, Joe A. "Altered States: Evolution or Revolution in
Journal-Based Communications?" American Libraries 20 (June
1989): 497-500.
Lewis, David W. "Economics of the Scholarly Journal." College &
Research Libraries 50, no. 6 (1989): 674-88.
Okerson, Ann, and Kendon Stubbs. "The Library Doomsday Machine."
Publishers Weekly, 8 February 1991, 36-37.
Patterson, L. Ray, and Stanley W. Lindberg. The Nature of
Copyright: A Law of Users' Rights. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press, 1991.
Price, Derek J. de Solla. Little Science, Big Science. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1963.
Rochell, Carlton. "The Knowledge Business: Economic Issues of
Access to Bibliographic Information." College & Research
Libraries 46, no. 1 (1985): 5-12.
Strong, William S. The Copyright Book: A Practical Guide, 4th
ed. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.
Thatcher, Sanford. "Toward the Year 2001." Scholarly Publishing
24 (October 1992): 25-37.
White, Herbert S. "Scholarly Publishers and Libraries: A
Strained Marriage." Scholarly Publishing 19 (April 1988):
125-29.
+ Page 18 +
White, Herbert S. "The Journal That Ate the Library." Library
Journal, 113, no. 9 (15 May 1988): 62-63.
White, Herbert S. "Librarians, Journal Publishers and Scholarly
Information: Whose Leaky Boat is Sinking?" Logos 1, no. 4 (1990):
18-23.
White, Herbert. "Scholarly Publication, Academic Libraries, and
the Assumption That These Processes Are Really Under Management
Control." College & Research Libraries 54, no. 4 (1993):
293-301.
Appendix A. Model University Policy Regarding Faculty
Publication in Scientific and Technical Scholarly Journals
Preamble
The Constitutional purpose of copyright is "to promote the
Progress of Science and useful Arts by securing for limited Times
to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries" (Article I, section 8, clause 8).
Thus, from the beginning U.S. copyright legislation has had the
complementary purposes of protecting the intellectual property of
authors and of promoting widespread access to useful information.
The following policy addresses the need to maintain a balance
between scholars' rights as authors and a fundamental mission of
the modern university; that is, to promote the free exchange of
ideas and research results. To this end, this university will
work to strengthen already-existing university and scholarly
society or association publishing enterprises whose journal
subscription prices are rationally related to the actual costs of
journal publication. This university will also work with
scholarly associations and research libraries to provide support
services that facilitate the widespread dissemination of faculty
research results.
+ Page 19 +
The Policy
As a non-profit institution which relies heavily on government
and foundation grants to support its research activities, this
university asks its faculty to publish their scientific and
technical research results in journals supported by universities,
scholarly associations, or other organizations sharing the
mission to promote widespread, reasonable-cost access to research
information. Where this is not possible, faculty should use the
model "Authorization to Publish" form below to ensure that
control of copyright in the published results of their university
research remains within the academic research community.
Where publishers' pricing practices would restrict
widespread access to research results, individual retention of
copyright to scientific and technical journal articles will help
to ensure that faculty maintain their rights, individually or
collectively, to disseminate this information, as appropriate, to
colleagues, students and the public at large using existing and
emerging print and electronic technologies. Current copyright
law specifically gives the owner the right to reproduce,
distribute, prepare derivative versions, and to perform or
display articles or other works.
The model "Authorization to Publish" form stipulates that
the article will be published with a statement on the first page
notifying readers that copyright remains with the author(s) and
giving permission for the noncommercial reproduction of the
article for educational or research purposes. Thus, only
commercial reproduction beyond initial publication in the journal
would require that the author(s) be contacted directly for
permission. Faculty may also want to consider negotiating a
contract which gives the publisher a nonexclusive right to sell
licenses to reproduce the article at agreed-upon reasonable rates
(for instance, to commercial copy services which reproduce
articles for use in university "course packs").
+ Page 20 +
Model "Authorization to Publish" Form
A major mission of _________________________________ (name of the
university) is to provide for the creation and dissemination of
new knowledge. To promote the widest possible dissemination of
research results, the faculty employees of this University are
encouraged to publish in journals supported by organizations
having the mission to support widespread reasonable-cost access
to research results. Where this is not possible, faculty are
asked to retain individual copyright in the scientific and
technical scholarly journal articles produced while conducting
university research. Therefore,
_________________________________________________________________
[hereinafter called the Author(s)] grants to
_________________________________________________________________
[hereinafter called the Publisher] the right to publish the
article provisionally entitled
_________________________________________________________________
[hereinafter called the Article] in the following
print/electronic journal:
This authorization does not transfer to the Publisher copyright
in the Article, nor the right to grant or deny permission for the
reproduction of the Article in other forms, with the exception of
limited reproduction by indexing and abstracting services. This
Authorization takes effect only upon the acceptance by the
Publisher of the Article for publication in the journal indicated
above. If the Article is not accepted for publication, no
authorization of the Publisher shall have been made.
The Author(s) retain(s) all title, interest, and rights in
the Article, including but not limited to the rights to grant or
deny permission for further reproduction of the published
Article, to use material from the Article in subsequent works, to
redistribute the Article by electronic means, to display the work
publicly, to procure registration of copyright, and to secure
copyright in any other country.
+ Page 21 +
Warranties
The Author(s) warrant(s) that he/she/they is/are the sole
author(s) and proprietor(s) of the Article, that the Article does
not contain any libelous or unlawful material, that it does not
infringe upon the rights of others, and that its contents are
original to the Author(s) and have not been submitted for
publication in another journal. If the Article contains
significant excerpts from other copyrighted materials, the
Author(s) warrant(s) that written permission from the copyright
holder has been obtained and proper credit has been given in the
Article.
The following notice shall appear, as a condition of
publication of the Article, as a footnote on the first page of
the Article as distributed by the Publisher:
"Copyright to this work is retained by the author(s).
Permission is granted for the noncommercial reproduction of
the complete work for educational or research purposes, and
for the use of figures, tables and short quotes from this
work in other books or journals, provided a full
bibliographic citation is given to the original source of
the material."
Date: ________________________
Signature(s) of Author(s): _____________________________________
Name(s) of Author(s):________________________________________
Authorizing signature for the Publisher:
_________________________
+ Page 22 +
Appendix. Advice to Authors
The following guidelines are intended to aid faculty in choosing
an appropriate scholarly journal publisher and in negotiating
copyright and licensing agreements which insure the widest
possible dissemination of their scholarship and research results
at reasonable costs.
1. Choosing a scholarly journal publisher and submitting
an article for publication:
In evaluating any potential journal for the
publication of an original article, faculty should
consider the publisher's policy regarding the
reproduction of articles for education or scholarly
purposes by students, faculty, and libraries.
Publication with university publishers or other
not-for-profit scholarly associations will ensure that
the university community can promote widespread access
to these research results at reasonable cost.
Publication via a national or international public
online computer network is encouraged when this
alternative is available.
Although not required to protect copyright,
faculty should never submit an article for publication
to a scholarly journal without including a "notice of
copyright" on the title page (e.g., 1992 J.Q. Faculty).
2. The rights that authors retain by not assigning
copyright in their scholarly journal articles to
profit-driven publishers include:
o The right to reproduce the work, to authorize
the reproduction of the work, or to exclude
others from reproducing the work.
o The right to distribute or authorize the
distribution of the work by sale, rental,
lease, or lending.
o The right to prepare or authorize the
preparation of derivative works (such as
translations, new editions, abridgements,
etc.) of the work.
o The right to present or "perform" the work
publicly in person or through the mass media.
o The right to display the work publicly
through new technological methods.
+ Page 23 +
3. The responsibilities authors and their supporting
institutions assume by not assigning copyright in their
scholarly journal articles to profit-driven publishers
include:
o The responsibility to seek not only the most
prestigious journals for publication of
articles, but also those which will assure
their widespread availability to other
scholars and students at a reasonable cost.
o The responsibility to learn more about our
current system of scholarly communication
through journals and the role copyright
plays in this system.
o The responsibility to participate actively in
campus, national, and international
committees, discussion groups, and forums
where changes in our current system of
scholarly communication are being debated.
o The responsibility to support nascent efforts
among university presses and other campus
agencies to create new outlets for scholarly
research that promote widespread access
to these resources among university scholars
worldwide.
o Where not already assigned by license to a
publisher, the responsibility to respond
promptly to requests to resell articles for
commercial purposes (noncommercial
reproduction would be automatically permitted
by the notice printed or electronically
displayed on the first page of the article).
+ Page 24 +
About the Authors
Members of the TRLN Copyright Policy Task Force:
Gary D. Byrd, Health Sciences Library, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Jerry D. Campbell, Perkins Library, Duke University.
Stephen A. Cohn, Duke University Press.
Jerry M. Davis, Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences,
North Carolina State University.
Paul Garwig, Textiles Library, North Carolina State
University.
Laura N. Gasaway, Law Library, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
Joe A. Hewitt, Davis Library, University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill.
Connie K. McCarthy, Perkins Library, Duke University.
C. David Perry, University of North Carolina Press.
Ross Whetten, Forestry, North Carolina State University.
Please address comments or questions to:
Gary Byrd
Health Sciences Library
CB #7585, UNC-CH,
Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599
Phone: 919-966-2111
FAX: 919-966-1029
E-Mail: BYRDMED@MED.UNC.EDU
+ Page 25 +
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is an electronic
journal that is distributed on BITNET, Internet, and other
computer networks. There is no subscription fee.
To subscribe, send an e-mail message to LISTSERV@UHUPVM1
(BITNET) or LISTSERV@UHUPVM1.UH.EDU (Internet) that says:
SUBSCRIBE PACS-P First Name Last Name. PACS-P subscribers also
receive three electronic newsletters: Current Cites, LITA
Newsletter, and Public-Access Computer Systems News.
This article is Copyright (C) 1993 by Gary D. Byrd, Jerry D.
Campbell, Stephen A. Cohn, Jerry M. Davis, Paul Garwig, Laura N.
Gasaway, Joe A. Hewitt, Connie K. McCarthy, C. David Perry, and
Ross Whetten. All Rights Reserved.
The Public-Access Computer Systems Review is Copyright (C)
1993 by the University Libraries, University of Houston. All
Rights Reserved.
Copyright to this work is retained by the author(s).
Permission is granted for the noncommercial reproduction of the
complete work for educational or research purposes, and for the
use of figures, tables and short quotes from this work in other
books or journals, provided a full bibliographic citation is
given to the original source of the material.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink