From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 08:10:43 +0100

Sandy

I think we are talking about different types of reprinting. Yes to
anthologies. There are few anthologies in the sciences. However for
medical sciences the money comes from pharma and some suppliers who
want reprints often to give to practitioners. This is a
simplification.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2013 11:52:03 -0500

Actually, I doubt that the "big numbers" in terms of reprints favor STM over
the humanities. There are likely a great many more anthologies reprinting
articles in the humanities than there are in the STM fields.  Think of a
classic essay like John Rawls's "Justice as Fairness." I suspect this has
been reprinted hundreds of times.

Sandy


> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 07:56:11 +0100
>
> Yes I agree. I am speaking about STM but this is where the big numbers
> are. I am aware humanities journals worked differently though now many
> or most of the larger ones are handled in the same way by larger
> companies. At least that is my understanding. Corrections welcome
>
> Yes it would be possible to set up a system though it does mean every
> author has an account. As a journal author I get a small payment every
> year from the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society in the UK.
>
> I do not know how it came about that book authors had royalties and
> very rarely did anyone in the journal editorial structure even the
> editor received a royalty. I can think of a tiny number of instances
> from the 1970s. This is of course historical. I suspect that any sort
> of payment to editors of journals (never mind authors) came about when
> commercial publishers became a more important part of the overall
> picture - they had of course always been there. My memory is that in
> the past learned societies paid journal editors nothing. Commercial
> publishers I have worked for always paid editors although sometimes it
> was so-called expenses.
>
> If anyone knows how journals and books moved apart in the way they
> were run and the way they were financed I would love to know. Has
> anyone written on this?
>
> This is of course history. I am not arguing that it is good - or bad.
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sandy Thatcher <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 18:34:32 -0500
>
> In STM journals you're right that probably the majority of articles
> are written by multiple authors. That is certainly NOT true for
> journals in the humanities. Social sciences fall somewhere in between,
> I'd say. But I'm not sure why this would be a problem, since book
> co-authors and co-editors are generally paid royalties and shares of
> subsidiary rights.
>
> I'm not sure what length has to do with it either. if you look at a
> typical anthology in philosophy, for example, you'll see that the
> great majority of the contents are reprinted journal articles, rather
> than excerpts from books.
>
> No doubt the main reason for the difference in treatment,
> historically, is that the cost of tracking subsidiary rights income
> for journal authors--especially for publishers with large numbers of
> journals and hence large numbers of authors--was considered excessive
> in relation to the benefits likely to accrue to any authors.  My guess
> is that this kind of cost is much less with fully automated tracking
> systems, though it no doubt remains true that the vast majority of
> journal authors would not make a great deal of money from the sharing
> of such income.
>
> Sandy