RE: Vanishing Act -- continued

[stephen.barr@sagepub.co.uk]

This discussion so far has not as far as I am aware had a comment from
Elsevier; it would be interesting to hear their view.  As a publisher, I
have a different angle on with some of the points made, particularly on
withdrawal of content for legal reasons - where the content is (or is
reasonably claimed to be) libellous, a violation of copyright, or in some
other way an infringement of the law.  It does not seem reasonable to
attack Elsevier or other publishers for withdrawing content in these
circumstances.  There are well established legal conventions to the effect
that continued supply, after notification of the legal violation,
aggravates the original offence and can make the publisher and author
vulnerable to much greater damages.  Traditionally in journal publishing
this had little effect, as the copies of that issue had already been
despatched.  In book publishing, on the other hand, it is common where a
book is subject to an accusation of legal breach and where that accusation
has some basis or reasonable potential of success, for the book to be
withdrawn from continued sale, at least until the issue has been resolved.

Electronic publication means that journal publishing now involves the
issue of continued supply which traditionally arose for books.  The
publisher cannot wait until after a court has determined that the book or
article in question was in fact libellous or in breach of copyright - the
publisher has to act on notification of the offence.

The community should by all means develop codes of practice which
represent guidance to authors, publishers, societies and journal editors
on how to handle issues of retraction, correction or withdrawal of
content.  I suggest though some realism on authors' and publishers' legal
liabilities and responsibilities.

Stephen Barr
Sage Publications London
stephen.barr@sagepub.co.uk

The opinions expressed are personal