Are editorials reaping what they have not sown?

Are editorials reaping what they have not sown?

Patricia Covarrubia   February 15, 2012   1 comment:

This month I have been following news regarding ‘the Cost of Knowledge’. For those of you who are not aware of this situation, scientists all over the world are signing a petition to boycott academic publisher Elsevier. At the moment there are more than 5000 signatories of the manifesto. The point in discussion is the 'exorbitantly high' prices that Elsevier's scientific journals has in place and the 'huge profits' that they are making. Apart from the cost/value issue academics on the field also noted that publishers “often force libraries to subscribe to packages of journals, in which less relevant titles are pushed along with essential magazines”.

But why Elsevier?
I believe that there are many others publishers that should be at the end of this story (and not only Scientifics ones perhaps?). Yet the target is Elsevier been the largest publisher of scientific journals (in 2010 it published about two thousand journals and had a profit of 847 million Euros).

The boycott
Well, very simple...researchers say they will not publish more in journals of the Elsevier’s group and moreover neither will act as peer-reviewers. The petition has been supported also by Gowers, from Cambridge University, who posted here some interesting point of views ( now with more than 300 comments).

Today I noticed that my query: what about other journals/areas, is also a reservation that others academics have; Ernesto Galvão, a professor at the Universidade Federal Fluminense, Brazil and one of the signatories of the manifesto, noted: “there is something very wrong with the whole system of publishing scientific articles". Hence, we can say that some Scientific academics are discontent with publishers.

A model is needed to replace the current system, but which one?
Kenneth Campbell, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) and editor of the Brazilian Physics, published by Uerj, and associate editor of American Journal of Public Health, United States - remembers that in some open access journals from abroad, the authors must pay a publication fee – a practice which is not common in Brazil. He explains that if this is the way to go, funding/grants will be diluted. Yet, he noted that at this point there is not a model but in any case, he does not agree with the ‘oligopolistic’ one that exists at the moment.

Ernesto Galvão mentions the model followed and applied by ‘arXiv’ which is a public repository of articles (used by sciences’ researchers). He says that this system also has a “mechanism for validating the quality of the articles”. He also suggests that there are other models and that combining some kind of peer review and a low cost of dissemination is the way to go.

What Elsevier says...
The publisher released a statement that argues that publishers are necessary for the proper functioning of science. It explained that the market i.e. research, works more efficiently and effectively because of the value added by publishers through the process of publication.

An IP point of view, if any...

Copyright and thus, economic rights: authors are not claiming that they want payment for their work; they want the work to be more ‘economic’ accessible – that is different, so not really IP related. Why then I bring this issue into your attention? Academics/professionals are the creators and authors of the work - the ones that are sowing. Yet, while they are not looking to reap what they have sown, they do indeed have the right to have a said. There is the need of a balance – the case in point; academics query ‘the cost of knowledge’.

There is the need also to consider the other side of the coin: to publish, to print, to distribute and to advertise do cost money and these costs need to be cover by someone somewhere; publishers are not charities.

What is your thought in this matter?

Read More

Educational materials on the network - Don't bite off more than you can chew

Educational materials on the network - Don't bite off more than you can chew

Patricia Covarrubia   November 16, 2011   No comments:

The Brazilian Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled against an educational institution to pay $ 20,000 in damages to a literature professor in Brasilia, due to improper posting of educational materials on the Internet.

What are colleagues for?
The applicant to the case, a Brazilian teacher, lent ‘his’ book to a colleague at another institution for consultation [no harm in there]. However, the applicant was surprised to see the content of his book on his colleague’s Institution’s website with no clear identification that he was the author.

The ministers of the Fourth Class, following the vote of the rapporteur, Elizabeth Gallotti considered that, although there was no bad faith the Institution failed to check authenticity, authorship and content of publications.

The claimant and author of the book claimed that the book was not even disclosed to students at the school he works for fear of plagiarism and because he wanted to publish it in the future. He argued that the book was lent for reference purposes only and was surprised to see his work at the website of another institution. His goal was to make profits on the sale of the book value at $ 80 a piece, and thus, he asked for $ 32,000 for property damage, such as repairing the loss of profit and moral damage.

The educational institution – the defendant’s employer
The Institution responsible for the site where the material was published argued that they usually provide their students with all content taught in class through its website. Yet, it did not know that the teacher in question (the defendant) was not allowed to use the aforementioned book on the course taught at its Institution.

The minister Isabel Gallotti said that under the current Civil Code -Art 932 and 933, which is the one to be applicable in this case "prescribes strict liability of employers for the acts of its employees and agents." In other words, employers are vicariously liable for the acts of employees during the course of their employment . She stressed that the responsibility is born from the prejudicial conduct against the teacher (claimant and author in the case). Additionally, she pointed out that the institution has somehow benefited by the disclosure of the material, regardless of their good faith.

The author's work has been made available without his consent, without clear indication of his authorship and therefore according to the Fourth Class of the STJ, the moral damage morale is evident-- the frustration of not conserving his unpublished work and publishing at a time that suits him. According to Article 24 of Law 9610/98, which governs copyright, the authors can claim at any time the authorship of the work.

However, note that the STJ denied the claim for compensation. The reason being that, according to the STJ, to award compensation, it is necessary to demonstrate actual damage to property, not enough to claim damages based on alleged future plans. [ouch!]

Brazil shows that there is protection available to both published and unpublished works. However I am not quite sure about damages here. Correctly the STJ grants moral damage compensation but does not recognise that the claimant was deprived by the actions of the defendant. If he continues with his plans of publishing his work, any editorial will question the fact that the material has been online – free for all – will an editorial be willing to publish his work? And in this regards I question the fact that his future plans are not longer in place producing him a future loss – really? Perhaps he would not have sold any books. Yet, I do believe that because it is not white and black how much the damage actually is or will be, we are not able to regard this as an genuine monetary damage [I do not agree]. However, we also need to note that the infringer appears not to have profited from it and I believe that it is here where the court noted that it cannot see actual damages. Can we say then that the STJ is using the proverbial principle to "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"?

Case No REsp 1201340.

Read More