From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 17:26:55 -0700
I have no comment to make about the copyright issues that are raised
here, but there are at least two items in Kevin Smith's message that
are incorrect. First, it is not true that authors invariably "choose"
journals rather than publishers. Some authors pay close attention to
the ownership of journals as this can affect such things as the nature
of the software platform in use and access to markets. The marketing
issue is particularly acute when global markets are taken into
account. Some publishers simply have greater reach. Not all authors
are aware of this, but some are. There is a reason that an author may
wish to publish with Elsevier, Springer, Wiley Blackwell and their
ilk, and that is that these publishers do a very good job for authors.
This is not to say that smaller publishers do not or cannot do a good
job as well, but Elsevier did not get where they are today by being
clumsy or hostile to authors' interests.
The second error is in saying that authors have no or little choice in
where they publish. Presumably the publishers on this list have all
picked themselves up after they fell to the ground upon reading that
remark. The competition for getting the best authors is so stiff that
it is a wonder that brawls do not break out. Some part of this item
may be merely rhetorical: What do we mean by "choice"? The best
authors have choice, but, by definition, not all authors can be the
best--except at Lake Woebegone, where all the kids are above average.
It is also somewhat misleading to talk about submissions. The best
authors are courted by editors; editors reach out to them. While many
authors submit papers blindly to a publication, editors are out
talking to the most distinguished researchers every day, encouraging
them to "submit" to their journals. Journals publishing is a highly
competitive and creative task. The most successful publishers got
that way because of talent.
Joe Esposito
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 3:16 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Kevin Smith <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 00:51:59 +0000
>
> I actually didn't think I was saying anything very controversial, but
> perhaps I was naive.
>
> It is also naive, or disingenuous, to suggest that authors can just
> "choose another publisher" if they don't like a contract. Academic
> authors do not choose publishers, they choose journals. They may
> select the journal they want to publish in based on its disciplinary
> niche and impact, but never, at least in the journal world, because of
> which conglomerate publishes it (except, as in the case of the
> Elsevier boycott, negatively). And their choices are usually severely
> limited, especially if they work in a specialized field.
>
> I certainly do believe that there would be fewer enforcement actions
> over plagiarism/infringement if only the author's wishes, and not also
> a publisher's desire to protect a profit, were involved, but there
> would certainly be some. And publishers could still send cease and
> desist letters, even as non-exclusive licensees, as Mr. Watkinson
> acknowledges.
>
> It is worth remembering that copyright is not an all-or-nothing
> proposition, but an infinitely divisible bundle of rights. A
> well-drafted license could certainly apportion rights in a way that
> allowed for appropriate enforcement when mutually agreeable, as well
> as for downstream licensing and permissions.
>
> Kevin L. Smith, J.D.
> Director of Scholarly Communication
> Duke University
> Perkins Library
> Durham, NC 27708
>
>
|
