Re: Fair use, ILL, copyright, and other hurdles

[Velterop von Leyden Consultancy <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

I can't help but agree with John Cox when he says "...don't whinge; do
something!". He suggests talking to publishers. That should be done, of
course, but I also agree with T. Scott Plutchak that there is a principle
at stake here, and it's not just about price or piecemeal concessions. So
I suggest: change the world, so that ILL, fair use, licences, copyright,
etcetera, no longer stand in the way of unfettered scientific information
exchange.

Lest anyone think I'm making a case against commercial publishing, let me
draw attention to a commercial model that makes the above possible. I'm
making the case for private sector involvement, as long as it is truly in
the service of science. But first let's look at the basics. There are very
good reasons for scientists to publish their research papers, but direct
monetary gain isn't one of them. They need to be sure no one else is
changing their work or passing it off as their own, but they don't need
copyright. Indeed, they give it away - to the publishers - at the drop of
a hat. Apart from gain, the other - main - reason why copyright entered
the legal system, was to promote the "progress of science and the useful
arts". Now that was written a few centuries ago, but arguably, in the
present electronic world scientific progress would fare rather better
without the hurdles of copyright. Copyright is, of course, a good thing,
but a total red herring in present day scientific journal publishing.

Now to the publishing models that operate without the need for copyright
and its transfer. A good example is BioMed Central, an unsubsidized,
private publishing house. Once accepted for publishing after a peer review
process, they charge the author a small fee and subsequently make the
article freely available electronically (and for a small price also in
print for those who want it) to anyone, anywhere, anytime. No restrictions
anymore to ILL, copying, storing, sharing, you name it. Imagine what this
does for the developing world!

All very well, but what can librarians do?

The ones that ask don't half understand the power they have. They can
publicize and advocate these models among their users (no need to call
them Authorized Users anymore!), and explain what would happen if more
scientists published their work in journals that adhere to these new
models: maximum circulation, superb 'findability' if stored in the large
deposiotories such as PubMed, and much lower costs to the 'system'.

But page charges! Are you out of your mind?

True, it appears a lot easier to fleece a thousand librarians than to make
scientists pay for the publication of their articles. And yet the authors
benefit most from publication. And yet the benefits of an unfettered
information flow would be substantial. And yet the benefits to the
developing world would be enormous. And yet the digitalization of science
communication would go much faster. And yet new quality assessment
mechanisms - to complement the Impact Factor and apply to individual
articles instead of journals - could flourish. And yet it could be done in
public as well as private, commercial environments. The benefits of author
charges are such that every possible opportunity to make the case should
be taken, also by librarians.

Jan Velterop
Publishing consultant

velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com
velterop@mac.com