Re: BioOne Releases New Model Publication Agreement

Sandy,

Thanks for your close and thoughtful read of our model
agreement, 
as well as for your comments. Just a couple of points of 
clarification (by no means an attempt to address every issue
you 
have raised):

1. The author's right to deposit the article in
institutional or 
subject repositories (which is what I take you to mean when
you 
say "distribute the article") immediately is
presented as an 
option for the publisher to choose. As we note in the 
accompanying information sheet for publishers (p. 3, #3):

  [if and as required by your employing institution(s) or
your
  funding source(s)] If you wish to allow authors to deposit
their
  article in publicly accessible institutional and/or
subject
  repositories during the exclusivity period without
explicitly
  being required to do so, this phrase should be deleted.
If, on
  the other hand, you prefer that authors not make
voluntary
  deposit during the exclusivity period, this phrase should
be
  retained."

2. BioOne is not a subsidized operation (initial capital 
contributions by Charter Supporters have been reimbursed)
and 
must provide a sustainable revenue stream for its partner 
publishers through royalties paid on subscription revenues. 
For 
more information on BioOne's business model, you may be 
interested in reading Carpenter, Joseph, & Waltham,
"A Survey of 
Business Trends at BioOne Publishing Partners and Its 
Implications for BioOne," portal: Libraries and the
Academy 4.4 
(2004): 465-84 (winner of the Johns Hopkins University Press

award for 2005 Best Article).

3. We completely agree--and have tried to be frank on this 
point--that this model agreement is not suited to all 
publishers--likely not even all BioOne publishers--(much as
SERU 
is not meant to replace all subscription licenses) or to all

fields of scholarship. We attempted to build in enough 
flexibility, in the form of variable provisions, that it
might be 
of rather wider than narrower use. At a minimum, we hope
that the 
issues addressed in this agreement--especially those
sections 
that address author and publisher repository deposits--will
serve 
as a catalyst for discussion.

Best,

Mark

Mark Kurtz  |  Director of Business Development  |  BioOne
21 Dupont Circle Suite 800  |  Washington, DC  20036
Phone 202.296.2296  |  Fax 202.872.0884  |  Cell
617.669.4276
mkurtzarl.org
www.BioOne.org


On Apr 10, 2008, at 9:25 AM, Sandy Thatcher wrote:

> This model agreement indeed incorporates many of the
provisions 
> advocated in the various author addenda, although it
does 
> require the author not to distribute or allow authors
to 
> distribute the article for six months after first
publication 
> in the journal in which it appears (with some
exceptions for 
> the author's personal web page and immediate limited
uses for 
> teaching and research activities).
>
> What I find most interesting is that it asks for
transfer of an 
> exclusive right only for first publication in the
journal; 
> everything else is handled under a non-exclusive
license. This 
> arrangement may work for societies, and for subsidized

> operations like BioOne, where there is no special need
to 
> recover costs the publisher incurs and where the
mission is to 
> maximize distribution irrespective of any need to
recover 
> costs.
>
> But for publishers like university presses, and of
course 
> commercial publishers, an exclusive right only to first

> publication will provide no legal means for protecting
the 
> investment against any pirate that chooses to take the
articles 
> and republish them in any other arrangement than just
the one 
> used for the original journal issue (which is protected
by the 
> publisher's copyright in the work as a collective
work).
>
> A nonexclusive right gives the holder no standing to
sue for 
> infringement.  The publisher has a stake in protecting
the 
> investment that no individual contributor does; in
fact, the 
> individual contributor will benefit from wider
distribution. 
> Thus only the publisher has a motivation to sue but,
without an 
> exclusive right in more than first publication, could
not do 
> so.
>
> Also, while the six-month delay may work for science
journals, 
> it is unlikely to be sufficient to save journals in the

> humanities and social sciences from subscription
cancellations 
> as few libraries (maybe aside from ARL members) would
consider 
> that delay any huge cost to pay in terms of slowing
scholarly 
> communication. Heck, these articles sometimes take a
year or 
> two to get through the review process, so what is the
problem 
> with waiting another six months, I could hear many
librarians 
> asking, if it means we can save money on subscribing?
>
> So, while I applaud BioOne for taking this progressive
move, 
> let it be understood that its provisions apply to the
special 
> nature of the journals that BioOne publishes and of the

> subsidization that occurs in this sector of publishing,
which 
> does not exist for university presses, at least for
journals 
> (presses are subsidized primarily because they lose
money 
> publishing books; few, if any, presses lose money
publishing 
> journals), and certainly not for commercial
publishers.
>
> Sandy Thatcher
> Penn State Press
>
> P.S. For an elaboration of this comment and more on the

> author's addendum, see my forthcoming article on this
topic in 
> Against the Grain.