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