Some commercial publishers, such as Elsevier, exploit a “nominal copyright” in which they require the full and exclusive transfer of authors` rights to the publisher of open access articles, while copyright in the name remains the property of the authors. [38] The assumption that this practice is a condition for publication is misleading, as even works in the public domain can be reused, printed and distributed by publishers. Instead, authors can grant a simple, non-exclusive publication license that meets the same criteria. However, according to a 2013 survey by Taylor and Francis, nearly half of the researchers surveyed said they would still be satisfied with the transfer of copyright for open access articles. [39] Signed manuscripts and copyright transfer agreements must be submitted directly to the journal in which authors wish to publish their article. Contact information is available on the websites of some journals. This boils down to a fundamental gap between the purpose of copyright (i.e. giving an author/creator full choice over the distribution of works) and its application, as authors lose these rights when transferring copyright. These basic conceptual violations are underscored by the popular use of sites such as ResearchGate and Sci-Hub for illegal file sharing by academics and the general public. [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] In fact, widespread and unrestricted sharing helps to advance science faster than paid articles, so it can be argued that the transfer of copyright does a fundamental disservice to the entire research enterprise. [37] It is also very counterintuitive for learned societies such as the American Psychological Association to actively monitor and remove copyrighted content they publish on behalf of authors,[Note 3] as this is not considered in the best interests of authors or the reusability of...
Recent Comments