It's interesting to me that, for the most part, universities
do
try to make money of out of their research leading to
patents but
not out of the research that is protected by copyrights. So
David
is right with regard to copyright IP, whereas Joe is right
with
regard to patent IP. About 80 universities in this country
do, of
course, support their own publishing operations, mostly
focused
on humanities and social sciences rather than the sciences
(but
still about 20% of university press publishing overall is in
the
sciences). They most certainly do NOT treat these operations
as
fully commercial ventures, and indeed all but a few are
subsidized to one degree or another.
So many universities, with respect to copyrighted research
material at least, are indeed pursing the noble mission that
David outlines. This is not to say that they should continue
bearing the burden alone, however; way back in 1979 the
National
Enquiry into Scholarly Communication recommended that
universities without presses help support the whole system
by
contributing subsidies for their faculty's publications by
presses. Maybe the coming of Gold OA will help spread the
sense
that everyone must contribute to keep the system alive, but
if
narrowly applied to just author payments, the same imbalance
could be repeated again, and even worsened, with all of
those
colleges with few or no researchers getting an entirely or
almost
entirely free ride (not to mention many businesses) because
they
wouldn't have to buy anything.
Sandy Thatcher
Penn State Press
>Research universities do not exist for their own
>self-aggrandizement. Even for their beneficial effect
upon their
>students is not the primary purpose, although such
benefit is
>real. They exist in order to promote research, and are
directly
>and indirectly funded for the purpose. Research is done
not
>primarily for the benefit to the researcher, although
this
>benefit is also real. Nor is it done for the benefit of
the
>institution. It is done for the advancement of basic
science and
>scholarship, in the expectation that this will bring
material
>and intellectual benefit to society as a whole.
>
>This has been true from even the beginnings: Lawyers and
>physicians and theologians were educated not so they
would be
>rich, but for the perceived benefit to the security,
well being,
>and values of the community. Today it is the same: an
individual
>researcher may work for his personal intellectual
satisfaction,
>but he is not supported for that end. Knowledge is
attained so
>it may be published and used.
>
>The rich institutions are rich so they may have the
resources to
>do the research, to teach it, and to diffuse it, in the
>realisation that progress depends upon no one
institution. The
>money they have is to be spent for these purposes. The
cost for
>the effective publication of research is proportional
the amount
>and quality of the research, and the grants and internal
funding
>used for this can support the publishing as a necessary
and in
>most fields relatively inexpensive part. From each
according to
>its ability both to do, and to pay.
>
>David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
>dgoodman princeton.edu
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Joseph J. Esposito" <espositojgmail.com>
>Date: Friday, May 18, 2007 6:33 pm
>Subject: Re: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions:
Critique of PRC Study
>To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>
>> The library budgets are funded by multiple
sources. Send a kid
>> to college and see.
>>
>> It seems very hard to make the point that OA is
not in the
>> interest of research universities, but that is the
critical
>> point. Phil Davis notes that 200 institutions
produce 85% of
>> all research. Allowing for the reasonable
objection that we
>> need to know how that 85% figure was derived, it
nonetheless
>> seems to me that the intriguing question is what
percentage the
>> top 25 institutions produce. It's going to be a
big number.
>>
>> Why would the top 25 give this away? They are all
(with the
> > exception of the 2-3 with endowments that would
awe Croesus)
>> struggling to finance their operations, and they
are to give
>> away these riches? Why is it that McGraw-Hill and
Thomson can
>> make money with publications based on research,
but the
>> University of Illinois, Tufts, and the University
of Michigan
>> cannot (taking as my examples three outstanding
institutions
>> that nonetheless lack the cachet of a handful of
others)? The
>> top research institutions should take control of
their
>> intellectual property and commercialize it, not
for the good of
>> the world but to benefit themselves.
>>
>> Consider the alternatives: A university president
could take a
>> huge gift from a pharmaceutical company, a grant
that comes
>> with strings attached. Or a donor could fund a
new program,
>> slowly nudging university research into areas that
appeal to
>> the fancies of the rich. Shall we spend a moment
on grants
>> from the Department of Defense?
>>
>> Proprietary publishing, aka toll-access
publishing, when placed
>> in the hands of the universities themselves
(where, it must be
>> said, it absolutely does NOT currently reside),
would provide a
>> mechanism for funding research by distributing the
costs to the
>> users, the beneficiaries of that information. It
would enable
>> institutions to pursue their own research agendas.
And that is
>> for the good of the world.
>>
>> Joe Esposito
|
