ILL's, licensing, and the French Revolution

[brs4@lehigh.edu]

Two comments (or perhaps questions) relating specifically to licensing
issues in relation to ILL.

I'll take this opportunity, however, to direct those who are interested in
broader issues to see my posting "Of Burke, Publishing, and the Terror"
at:  https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/1556.html (I'm
actually not a Burkean, but rather an Aristotelian; just wanted to invoke
one aspect of the former's thought in this context.)

Ok, here now are the comments relating to licensing/ILL issues:

1. Regarding David Prosser's comments below about why commercials have
regarded it as in their self-interest to permit ILL's of print, I think
the reasoning is "spot on". However, I fail to see why the reasoning does
not also apply to electronic subscriptions to journals, granting that of
course it does not (logically) apply to open access electronic journals,
since these are free to all.

2. Unrelated to all this, can someone explain the logic of Springer's
author pays OA model as explained at:
http://www.springeronline.com/sgw/cda/frontpage/0,11855,1-40359-12-115393-
0,00.html

Specifically, in the following statement, how does it follow that a "high
standard of quality" follows from transfer of copyright?

"To protect the rights of authors and to guarantee a high standard of
quality, Springer will continue to require standard consent-to-publish and
transfer-of- copyright agreements. Copying, reproducing, distributing, or
posting of the publisher's version of the article on a third party server
is not permitted.  This enables Springer to provide the benefit of free
online access while preserving scientific integrity and author
attribution."

Springer's policy contrasts markedly with BioMed Central's, at:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/

"No copyright transfer needed

You keep the copyright on your research articles. This means you can post
your research on your personal home page, print as many copies as you like
and e- mail your paper around to colleagues, provided that correct
citation details are included on the article and that BioMed Central is
duly identified as the original publisher. Alternatively, for a small
charge, you can order high quality reprints of your article."

So according to Springer's logic, BioMed Central is going to compromise
quality in some way. How does this follow?

Brian Simboli

Quoting David Prosser <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>:

> There is not just the library stick of 'we must have ILL'. But there is
> also a carrot to publishers.  Especially in the pre-electronic era, ILL
> meant that readers had access to papers that they would not normally have
> access to, so resulting in (potentially) more reads and (potentially) more
> citations.  This was positive exposure for the journal at no cost to the
> publisher, pushing up the journal's impact factor and so the general
> attractiveness of the journal to authors.
> 
> If, for a given institution, the number of ILLs reached a significant
> number it might have resulted in a subscription - so the academic
> community would have done the advertising for the publisher.
> 
> In an electronic environment it is moot whether the potential increase in
> impact is offset by potential loss in pay-per-view income.  However, the
> ILL system is so ingrained that, as previous writers have noted, library
> customers will insist on it.
> 
> (I won't comment on the irony of publishers allowing ILL from print but
> not from electronic versions, so resulting in libraries scanning-in
> print papers that they already have electronic access to so as to fulfil
> ILL electronically.  OK, I will comment on it - it's barmy.  But
> libraries don't know what else to do!)
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> David C Prosser PhD
> Director
> SPARC Europe
> E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk