RE: Deposit Mandates as part of Publisher Services

Yes, and so do our contracts, but they have various
provisions 
such as allowing authors to reuse the article in any further
work 
of their own and sharing income from subsidiary rights sales

50/50.  Some journal article authors have made thousands of

dollars from reprints of their articles and our rates for 
reprints and coursepack use are not even all that high. 
Concerning the reason for copyright transfer, as a
publisher, we 
need exclusive rights to conduct our business because 
non-exclusive rights do not give a publisher standing to sue
for 
infringement. Our authors would generally not be motivated
to sue 
to protect us against piracy; for them, greater
distribution, 
even illegal distribution, is a bonus.

Sandy Thatcher
Penn State University Press


>Sandy,
>
>I would be interested in knowing how your authors profit
from
>having their articles reprinted in coursepacks since
most of the
>copyright transfer agreements that I have seen from
journals turn
>over all copyright to the publisher.
>
>David L. Osterbur, Ph.D.
>Access and Public Services Librarian
>Countway Medical Library
>Harvard Medical School
>Boston, MA   02115
>E-Mail: david_osterburhms.harvard.edu
>
>-----Original Message-----
>[mailto:owner-liblicense-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Sandy Thatcher
>Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2008 7:35 PM
>To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
>Subject: RE: Deposit Mandates as part of Publisher
Services
>
>As your Iowa example indicates, there has been a little
pushback 
>against the mandated deposit of dissertations in IRs or

>centralized databases like ProQuest's or the Networked
Digital 
>library of Theses and Dissertations.  But I emphasize
"little." 
>In truth, junior faculty put themselves at a
disadvantage by 
>having their dissertations archived in such places
because, as I 
>have written elsewhere, many libraries refuse to
purchase books 
>based on dissertations, and in turn presses become
reluctant to 
>publish them because their sales tend to be lower. 
Exceptions 
>are mostly made for dissertations in science where
patent issues 
>are involved.
>
>I won't dispute your contention that journal authors are
not 
>motivated to publish for monetary gain. In fact, though,
some of 
>them profit very handsomely from having their articles 
>frequently reprinted and used in coursepacks. Some of
our 
>journal authors have made far more money from these
sales than 
>our book authors have made from royalties.
>
>Sandy Thatcher
>Penn State University Press
>
>>On Sun, 23 Mar 2008, Sandy Thatcher wrote:
>>
>>>>Stevan Harnad: We must think beyond just the
NIH mandate to
>>>>all university research output, funded and
unfunded, in all
>>>>disciplines.
>>>
>>>You don't really mean "all," do you,
Stevan? Repeatedly in the
>>>past you have excluded research that appears in
book form.
>>>This, of course, doesn't make sense from the
standpoint of
>>>achieving comprehensive coverage of all research
output of
>>>universities and imposes artificial barriers
between research
>>>appearing in different formats. There can
ultimately be no
>>>intellectual justification for this separation.
>>
>>You are quite right, Sandy. I don't mean all
research output, I
> >mean all peer-reviewed journal/conference output
(the c. 2.5
> >million papers per year).
> >
> >(I keep ritually reiterating the same portmanteau
phrases so
> >often that I sometimes truncate them to give those
who have
>>heard them too often a bit of a break!)
>>
>>And you are also right that a distinction between a
research
>>paper and a research monograph is not a principled
distinction
>>insofar as content is concerned. It is just a
practical
>>distinction, insofar as (current) author motivation
is
>>concerned. But as a current, practical distinction,
it is
>>pertinent, accurate, and needs to be taken into
account:
>>
>>*All* peer-reviewed research paper authors, without
a single
>>exception, give away their articles, having written
them
>>*exclusively* for research impact, not for royalty
income
>>(actual or potential). Let us call them
"give-away authors."
> >http:
//cogprints.org/1639/01/resolution.htm#1.1
>>
>>This is simply not true of all scholarly/scientific
book and
>>monograph authors (often the same authors, but
wearing different
>>hats): Not all (probably not even most) such book
authors are
>>give-away authors.
>>
>>Hence it follows that even if most do not do it
spontaneously of
>>their own accord (for paradoxical reasons I've
dubbed "Zeno's
>>Paralysis -- consisting mostly of overwork inertia,
copyright
>>paranoia, and simple ignorance, lately diminishing),
give-away
>>authors can be induced by a mandate from their
institutions and
>>funders to go ahead and give away their give-away
work by
>>self-archiving it free for all online (preferably in
their
>>Institutional Repository), *willingly* (as Alma
Swan's surveys
>>have shown). http://eprints.
ecs.soton.ac.uk/10999/
>>
>>But non-give-away authors cannot and should not be
mandated to
>>give away their non-give-away work, so we should not
even think
>>of trying it. That would only complicate the already
needlessly
>>complicated road to Green OA self-archiving mandates
for the
>>give-away work (already complicated by premature and
unnecessary
>>over-reaching on copyright retention and by
completely
>>unnecessary insistence on direct central deposit
instead of
>>institutional deposit and central harvesting).
>></ritual-repetition>
>>http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/369-guid.html
>>http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/374-guid.html
>>
>>Counter-productively insisting on the OA
self-archiving of books
>>that authors do not currently wish to give away
would be very
>>much like insisting on copyright retention by
authors who are
>>paranoid about not putting their chances of
publication in their
>>preferred journals at any perceived risk. And it
would be just
>>as unnecessary -- since, for both of these desirable
outcomes,
>>their time will come in due course (as it will for
Gold OA
>>publishing too). But first things first. And it is
Green OA
>>self-archiving mandates for give-away research that
will pave
>>the way.
>>
>>A symptom of the fact that OA book mandates would be
a no-no comes
>>from the recent kerfuffle about Iowa Theses: Even
though most theses
>>are probably author give-aways, and will be
willingly self-archived,
>>those held in reserve for future book publication
will not, so OA
>>should not be mandated for them.
>>http://news-releases.uiowa.edu/2008/march/031708mfa.html

>>
>>Here again, Green OA IRs offer a possible interim
compromise: Like
>>articles published in journals that have not yet
endorsed immediate
>>OA self-archiving, non-give-away theses can be
deposited as Closed
>>Access instead of Open Access. The authors need
simply refuse all
>>email eprint requests received via the Button. (They
can even store
>>their refused eprint requests and use them as
evidence of demand for
>>their work when they approach a publisher!)
>>http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives
/274-guid.html
>>
>>Stevan Harnad