Your intellectual property
This issue has focused on copyright, how it protects intellectual property and what steps can be taken if it is breached. Join the discussion. Do you agree with A, B or C? And why?
As an integral part of the publishing process, what do you consider to be the most important aspect of copyright?Â
a) The more I can make use of my article (within the constraints of the policy), in print and on the Web or for teaching and research purposes, the better.Â
b) My main objective is the visibility and accessibility of my article, within the constraints of the policy. This includes exposure in e.g. search engines.Â
c) While both the above are important, the highest priority for me is that my intellectual property is protected against plagiarism or illegal copying.           Â
        Â
   Â
   Â
August 8th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
To me, B does apply most, C the least.
Up to present, the major obstacle for improving and speeding up my own publications is to search in vain for certain sources. Thus, I would appreciate if other publications would be made easier accessible, and consequently wish to present my own ones as openly as possible.
Through modern means, plagiarism can be faster than before, but it has always been possible.
August 7th, 2007 at 2:35 am
I agree most with A and then B. I’d rather feel sorry than angry for people who’d plagiarise my work.
The thing that annoys me most with copy-rights is that I have to obtain copy-right permissions of my own work for a publisher, if the original was published with the competition. As a consequence, I always change any book/book chapter contracts so that it becomes the onus of the publisher to obtain these permissions. In the end, they want to make money from it! Surprisingly, they all agree to do it (though initially they claim they can’t or wouldn’t).
July 24th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
In my view, both A and B are equally important, while C is of minor relevance. In many cases, insufficient dissemination of work is the main problem, not plagiarism. At least in my field there is a clear tendency to overlook work of all those not in the current ‘mainstream’. Wide distribution of sometimes controversial work that eventually may lead to discovery and change in paradigms is therefore very important. It is worthwhile to keep in mind that most of us who write scientific papers are paid by taxpayers’ money, therefore emphasis should be more on providing results to the public in return, and less on making sure that the ‘intellectual rights’ are protected in all cases. While I strongly disagree with colleagues who use the work of others in whatever form without giving proper credit (no matter whether this concerns data, products, software, oral and poster presentations, web material, or unpublished and published literature), I do not think we should limit dissemination because of this happening. Instead we all and in particular editors and reviewers should make an attempt to ensure that proper credit is given to work of others and that relevant work in a field is properly referenced. I believe that if we in general show that we put high value on proper credit for work of others and reject work that fails to do so for this reason, then plagiarism would not be any major problem.
July 24th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
A. I agree completely with what John Mitchell stated: As a University teacher its important to me to be able to use my own and other recent research results with as little restriction as possible.
July 20th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Comment B ia a good summary of my main views
July 19th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
I think my choice will be (c) since it is important not only to have high publicity for my work and visibility, but also the results should be protected from being plagearized.
July 19th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
I lean towards B and as a secondary issue A. Personally, I am less concerned about C as I expect plagiarists to get their just rewards!
July 18th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
C. Unfortunately, legal protection is required in todays society! The information needs to be protected before it is distributed. This is asimple thing to do and does not prevent the flow of information.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I agree with A &B and NOT with C. The object of scientific writing is to communicate ideas and information. This is radically different from a work of art, e.g., novel or a poem, in which the writing is the end in its self and thus needs be protected against plagiarism or illegal copying. Scientific communication needs to be highly accessible – it cannot be ‘free’ as there are real cost associated with the production and dissemination of the information. Once these costs are met for a given piece of science –then it should be freely accessible. In the cost calculation there needs to be the factored in the cost of preservation and dissention over a period of years. Not an easy, but not impossible task. The higher the original cost probably the sooner the data becomes ‘free’. Plagiarism is another matter and this in the domain of ethics and law. There are many standards of when a work can be reproduced but this does not deal with plagiarism. It is possible to publish Shakespeare’s sonnets as by the author - Shakespeare but it is unethical, and probably illegal to say that you, J. Jones is the author. One needs to separate reproduction with proper citation form plagiarism.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
A. As a University teacher its important to me to be able to use recent research results with as little restriction as possible.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
A) and B)
July 16th, 2007 at 12:39 pm
My personal opinion is that plagiarism and illegal copying is a truly important issue but the main one is to disseminate and let reproduce researches. They should be available on a worldwide basis with minimum constraints. I understand this could be, in some way, conflicting with publisher’s interests, however it should be properly regulated trading off different interests. Also, visibility is an important value for authors. I agree with A (90%) and B (50%).
July 16th, 2007 at 8:24 am
B
Scientific work needs visibility, what could be the sense of being accessible and therefore known by only few people?
July 15th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
As a scientist, editor and author, I feel that wide accessibility of information is the most important. Thus, I support A and B. I think the best guard we have against plagarism is for the original sources to in fact to be as freely available as possible. That makes it easy for everyone to see when work is plagarized. When work is accessible only to a few, some of those few can copy it with lower risk of detection than when all work is easily accessible. As I see it, illegal copying is only an issue for publishing houses in recouping their costs and making a profit. Clearly the viability of publishing is a concern for authors and editors, but beyond that, I fail to see how restricting access, or copying, serves the scientific enterprise at all. I think it would be in the best interests of science if all work were available to anyone at no cost soon after publication. To maintain the viability of publishing, clearly there needs to be some means by which people and libraries still have incentives to subscribe to journal. That might be provided by perhaps restricting access for one year, and then making access wide open after that. Publishing houses might also provide other services along with subscriptions as incentives for subscription.
July 15th, 2007 at 11:04 pm
As an editor I feel equal responsibility to authors and to the publication of new findings. The intellectual property is not very useful if it can’t be accessed - and the more it can be accessed, the more useful it is. We just need to continue to work to try to ensure that authors don’t lose out.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Although I believe that none of these options are mutually exclusive I believe that providing the main policioes are maintained that there should be accessibilty and availabilty of the articles as this allows better disssemination of all knowledge.So,all being considered I would support “b.”
July 15th, 2007 at 8:04 am
I agree with (a), (b) and (c); these are all elements that are involved in copyright and the protection of your work or your own IP (or that transferred under strict agreement with another party, e.g. publisher). The distinctions you have drawn are quite artificial. The answer in any specific case might preferably be (a) or (b) or (c) depending on the circumstances/context. None of these options is mutually exclusive.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:24 am
I vote for b because I do public research mainly and sharing the knowledge with others comes high on my list of goals. c would have been the preferred one, but it does not seem to be realistic.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
i agree with b. I do my work so that I can share it with other interested parties. While I don’t appreciate it when I see others take credit for my work, the main point is still the sharing of that knowledge.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Statement (b) is the vital one for the advancement of science. The rapid efficient dissemination of new knowledge is our primary resposibility whether this knowledge be used for advancements in science or training. Dealing with abuses of the system is a separate issue.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:03 am
I agree with (a). Copyright for a research journal makes no sense. In any case , Open Access for published research paid for by the people of a country is being accepted increasingly and will become a norm internationally soon.
July 13th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
My vote is for B as an author would be more interested in recognition and dissemination of his/her works. The copyright issue may be more important to publishers than witer to authors or editors.
As to plagiarism it is very important in scientific publication. The question is how it can be policed in this global age.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
b) My main objective is the visibility and accessibility of my article, within the constraints of the policy. This includes exposure in e.g. search engines.
July 13th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I vote for B though I expect C to be of growing importance. Optimizing visibility will be increasingly essental for all but the most famous scientists which includes the vast majority of authors for scientific journals. C is definitely going to be more important once scientific publication and the patenting system grow closer together, a development which is unavoidable on the long run.
July 13th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
In an ideal world, c. would be my preferred position. Having seen through international commitments, especially in Asia, that plagiarism is the normal practice, I concede that such a position is no longer practical.
Under these circumstances, I favour b.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:28 pm
The specific question should be: what role does copyright have in the publishing process of scientific journal articles? Although editors and publishers may have different answers, authors would opt for immediate free access of their work after peer review acceptance. That choice would eliminate copyright but would require compensation of the reviewing and publishing organization, either by the author or other sources.
As traditionally intended, copyright protects the rights of authors who get royalties from their published work, and the interests of publishers. Authors of scientific papers do not get royalties from their journal publications, and in this context copyright mainly protects the publisher.
Still, publishing by any medium is costly, and in my experience it can only be efficient as a free market competitive enterprise. There is no free lunch, and the wishes of authors can only be achieved by devising and accepting fair ways to compensate the review and publishing process.
Thus, copyright presently does not affect a, somewhat impedes b, and it is virtually impotent in protecting for plagiarism as in c.
In any event, scientifc progress is indifferent to plagiarism. Only authors and publishers are exercised, and for reasons that have nothing to do with science.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
I am in favour of a), but also b) has its merits. The dissimination of new research utcomes is the basis of science. The new IT-communication in addition to the traditional way of printing makes this possible.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
b comes closest to my views, although protection from plagerism is also important.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
I would select b. Because science advances so rapidly, it is critical for new information to be made rapidly available and easily accessible. For this reason, Elsevier needs to come up with a mechanism for making new papers available as soon as possible. I’m not a publisher,
and I don’t know all the issues, but in principle it makes more sense for authors to cover the costs of publication so that potential readers can have immediate open access.
I am not concerned about c. Because so much information exists, it is virtually impossible for an editor or publisher to screen up front for plagiarism. Misconduct is usually discovered and dealt with post-publication by the scientific community. If I’m concerned about protecting a new idea, I’ll patent the idea prior to publication.
July 13th, 2007 at 11:34 am
As an editor I would say C) for keepng our journal valued for its content.
July 13th, 2007 at 9:08 am
I vote for alternative A and B. Dissimination of information is allways positive. It is beneficial for science and also for the journal, as long as you can track back where the information originally was published.
July 13th, 2007 at 7:56 am
I would select “b” since then “a” is automatically achieved. “c” is of less personal concern at my advanced stage of career.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:15 am
I prefer a). I like to increase the number of published papers in Polar Science. For this purpose, I like to have much more chance of recognition that the journal is of good quality and comprehensive, covering many environmental research fields.
As for b), this is of secondary importance because this may raise only vacant concern.
As for c), I have optimistic opinion that plagiarism be shut out in the end and in much shorter time.
July 13th, 2007 at 3:11 am
I will go for B, and A. If nobody knows what you did, you did it for nothing.
July 13th, 2007 at 2:57 am
As an editor one must surely feel that option B is the most relevant - rapid dissemination, wide availability and ease of access are keys to the use of knowledge in the pursuit of new knowledge creation.
However, as an author I must select C as most relevant - it disturbs me that online availability is making plagiarism so much easier, and whilst my ideras my not be earth-shattering, they are still MY ideas and deserve to be treated as such. I find myself being plagiarised by students, by academics, by professionals, and it is simply dishonest.
July 13th, 2007 at 1:07 am
“B”
For my journal (J. Chem. Health Safe.) I want to see the widest dissemination of the information as possible. JCHAS is designed for working safety professionals so I view the publication as potentially life-saving. From that perspective, I want the information into as many safety professional’s hands as possible.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I believe that consideration B is most important.
Our experience in high energy physics is that open and rapid publication of results is beneficial to the whole field.
The ArXiv preprint service and the SPIRES bibliographic search engine and tools have become essential components of high energy physics.
The fact that Google and Google Scholar allow searches of all text of all papers posted on ArXiv has greatly enriched the field. Plagiarism is very rare in my experience.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
A) The more I can make use of my article (within the constraints of the policy), in print, on the Web or for teaching and research purposes, the better.
3 I don’t need C to use my articles for the kind of t & r I do.
B) My main objective is the visibility and accessibility of my article, within the constraints of the policy. This includes exposure in e.g. search engines.
1 Maximum availability - the public paid for my research
C) While both the above are important, the highest priority for me is that my intellectual property is protected against plagiarism or illegal copying.
2 I’ve always practiced open science. I’ve been plagiarized and copied without attribution, and my ideas have been used by others without acknowledgment, but wothehell, I have so many and most others have so few that I can afford the loss and could even feel flattered.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I find easy to agree with B but alco C has to be respected
July 12th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I agree with A, to the extent that if different publishers or journals had different policies on this issue, it would affect my choice of journals for submitting my research.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I agree most with B, I also feel there is a blurry distinction with A. I don’t feel very concerned about C. For most researchers visibility and accessability of their work is the most important thing, since most of their “rewards” flow from this, eg research grants, promotion etc
July 12th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
All of the above: I want our papers to be known as havIng appewred in this jouRNal, yet I want them to be freely accessible, and for authors to have the benefit of the visibility, and the intellectual community to have the benefit of the knowledge therein.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I would concur with those who point out that the line between A and B is blurry, and I agree with both. C is too restrictive for the free accessibility of ideas and discoveries to be optimal.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
I am more inclined to agree with points A and B. As a scientist, it is important to make new discoveries accessible to others so that the field could advance rapidly. As for point C, I believe there are legal and appropriate machinations in place to deal with such issues.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I feel that both A and B (and the somewhat blurry line between them) are much more of concern to most authors that I deal with and to me personally. I know few who really worry very much about C.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
B
Article exposure allows other scientists to read and cite the worrk published.
July 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I understand that the benefits of copyright are first to support the economic “engines” of publication through retention of rights by the publisher, and second to protect our intellectual property. Having had someone try to republish one of my papers as his own work, I am quite sensitive to the latter.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Since B seems to imply A, at least in my reading, I rank B highest. Articles that are not easily and freely available, in some form, on the Web will have diminished impact. Authors will vote with their feet (or is it their keyboards?) and prefer to submit to journals and conferences that facilitate or at least allow their papers to be on the Web.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
A
If I can use the article the way I want, then visibility will be maximized. My institution and my lab can create a web repository of papers and people who look for my work will find it.
Studies have shown that scientific papers available for free on the web enjoy the highest citation rates. This implies that if the author or his institution can use the article on their own web site, all other things being equal, they and their readers are better off.
IEEE allows authors to do this. So should Elsevier.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
I already filled this out. Again I clearly am in favor of option B
July 12th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
I agree with “A”. The more I can make use of my article (within the constraints of the policy), in print, on the Web or for teaching and research purposes, the better.
July 12th, 2007 at 2:08 pm
The answer has to be B.
As others have said, the object of publication is to make information availabe to all those who would be interested and can benefit from it. It may bolster an author’s reputation but that is not the main objectve. And nowadays plagiarisnm is both easily done and easily detected: it does nobody any good in the long run and the risk of plagiarism does not justify restrictions on the availability of knowledge.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Alas, I find it easy enough to agree with A, B, and C. The problem is that modern technology makes plagiarism ridiculously easy and in some cases almost normative. Who has not cut and pasted web passages into their lecture notes from time to time? Notions such as “copyright,” “plagiarism,” and such are almost anachronistic these days - - 19th century concepts ill-suited to the realities of 21st century information processing technology.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Both A and B are important. I agree with many of the other comments about C. This is usually not an issue and often it comes out in the open at the end.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
As a scientist, the more my article receives visibility the better (A, B). The purpose of publication is to disseminate the information for others to use. Any intellectual property involved has to be protected prior to publication of the concepts and reduction to practice. Copyright laws are not effective in preventing plagerism in most cases.
As a member of multiple editorial boards, I would also argue that wider dissemination also benefits the journal in terms of generating references and higher ISI ratings.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
B. I think plagiarism, if it occurs, always (or almost) finishes being detected.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
B - Quick, easy visibility/accessibility by the scientific community is paramount.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
B
July 12th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
B. If you do B well, C becomes less likely as well. Real plagiarism is extremely rare. More common is that essentially the same idea is put forward as “new” but usually using slightly different language, and quite possibly by an author who didn’t see the original work because it is older or used terms that pulled up different key words. As Dave Coleman points out, that is irritating, but good access and good reviewing procedures should minimize it.
July 12th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Option b is most important to me. The idea of publications is that scientists all over the world can become familiar with new results and new insights. Option a is also relevant, but less. Option c is less important to me than b or a.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:29 am
As an author I am answering b). Concerning c) - when unknown authors in “unknown” journals plagiarize a paper of well-known scientists, it is not that annoying. When it happens to be done by internationally recognized researchers or in well established journals, then indeed in some cases it may be flattering, under the condition however that it becomes known and is corrected by a addendum in one of the next issues of a journal.
As a member of editorial boards I answer both b) and c). Despite many answers below, c) is important
1. For some authors - to get a proper credit for their work and an Editor should respect their rights
2. For referees – they do not want to evaluate papers from an author known as the one copying and publishing other people articles (it happens more and more often)
3. For journals – if a journal publishes plagiarized works, the community learns about it and the journal may become discredited for leaving it to got through and in this way loose some potential authors
Both referees and journals should be careful not to publish plagiarized material.
July 12th, 2007 at 11:09 am
For most of us B is the one…we all curse and sweat our way to getting out ideas out there, then we forget about it and go onto the next thing. In many people’s jobs, they have nothing tangible to show for a lifetime’s work. We do not appreciate that we can account for everything we have done in print, essentially for the forseeable future. The money, career prospects and appreciation may be rubbish in this business, but if you can get something tasty out there where people can see it, then it’s probably worth it. As someone else mentioned about C, it is irritating to see one’s own ideas triumphantly re-invented by someone else, but eventually it will be noticed that you thought of the idea first sometime after you die or retire. A is less of a priority I think for most of us.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:52 am
A + B
As an author, I want to proliferate modes of access to my own work, both personal and public. Thus the difference between A/B is a distinction without a difference
Prof Emeritus Leslie Smith
July 12th, 2007 at 10:51 am
As a scientist, I would like my articles to be as visible as possible. In terms of copyright, I never really pay attention to it. All of us who have been publishing for a while would know that authors of articles do not always reference the original articles for techniques, ideas etc., and we have always tolerated that (not that it feels good when you see someone using your procedures without referring to your article). My philosophy is that you will get credit as long as you remain active in the field. I therefore agree with A and B, and hope that C happens.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am
For my activities as teacher and researcher A and B are critically important. C, is important, but concerns a matter that a sincere scientist should not be bothered with; if people critically depend on someone else’s ideas too bad, I never (have) suffer(ed) from a lack of ideas.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
This pretty much depends on who you are and the standpoint from which you are commenting. All are important, but each will be more or less important at given times and for given contexts.
So if your are a researcher/parctitioner:
(a) will be important to those who - in effect - wants a license to use the material in whatever way they see appropriate;
(b) will be important to those who are seeking to ensure there is effective knowledge transfer
(c) is important to those who consider they have an intellectual property that could be exploitable….
However, the importance is different for editors where the concern is with the best interest of the journal as an extension of the teacher/researcher/practitioners’ aspirations. Against that background (a) is limiting to the individual and (c) is something that cannot be said to reside within the journal or those who hold the copyright of the article that describes the intellectual property. Both are limiting the ownership. Option (b) is making use of the materail freely available to all without copyright restriction. Hence, I guess, the growing interest in - and support for - free to access publishing.
As I researcher I want (b). As an editor I want (c), but am not sure I can ever really achieve it.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:21 am
A (and B) makes sense to me. Maximum usage and exposure should be encouraged (within legal limits).
July 12th, 2007 at 10:19 am
B then A. C is an issue for elsewhere.
July 12th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I consider b and then a important, c isnot a problem for me.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:39 am
In my role as a lecturer and writer I support A. As a member of University staff involved in the UK Research Assessment Exercise, where B is critical, that would be my second choice.
I do find that literal use of C is creating much extra work for editors, having to sort out arguments between authors/co-authors etc. that should be done before papers are submitted. The word ‘plagiarism’ and the phrase ‘my intellectual property’ will no doubt be relaced by ‘my human rights’ (a least within the European Union) in due course!
I agree fully with Ieon Chaitow’s response.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:38 am
B - visibility and accessibility are crucial.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:25 am
B with A close behind …. for the reasons already mentioned ….
July 12th, 2007 at 9:23 am
B is the most important, because the purpose I write a paper is to let others read it, and my research should also based on the review of papers in the field.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:19 am
My first option option is B; I would indeed like to see that my article is visible and accessable. I would like to surely use my own work and do so also. I strongly feel that it is basically the knoweldge which one has to do the work and that cannot be taken away if some one accesses the published work available openly, or through search engine.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:10 am
B is the pricincipal aim - I am sure we all use our own work as required anyway. Open access is also an excellent way to prevent plagiarism - if the original can easily be found on the Web, plagiarism will be too easily detected to be attractive.
July 12th, 2007 at 9:06 am
I consider B as the most important, because visibility is crucial in the scientific world. I think plagiarism is something that rarely occurs, although perhaps some worning should be put in papers produced in specific countries.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am
I consider that B is the most important. Easy and rapid access to published material is for me essential and the web is an important means of access and and its importance will increase as more and more libraries either dispose of their print runs of journals or store them in remote archives.
In more than forty years of publishing, editing or reviewing articles I have not found plagiarism a real problem, and as leon Chaitow says it can be more flattering than irritating to the author who is plagiarised.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Thank you for setting up this interesting discussion. I first made up my mind about it and then read the responses. These responses converge rather well with my own opinion and did not change my mind on it.
So I definitely consider b) to be most important, and a) to be also very important, and much more important than c).
July 12th, 2007 at 8:25 am
B (and A).
July 12th, 2007 at 8:13 am
I would say b) first, and a) second although they both are very important, in fact much more important than c)
July 12th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Given accurate referencing (b); but as this is unreliable (a) so my corrections are not constrained. If all else fails (c).
July 12th, 2007 at 8:02 am
b makes most sense
July 12th, 2007 at 7:56 am
B.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:47 am
I support (b0
July 12th, 2007 at 7:46 am
I totally agree with c) as most important, in particular in light of the fact that search engines meanwhile go over anything they find on a Web page. Moreover, I was victim to a bad case of plagarism a couple of years back, and the publisher (which was not Elsevier) did virtually nothing about it.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:46 am
b)
July 12th, 2007 at 7:29 am
a and b. I see no real harm in individuals copying my ideas and or material - if done accurately. I see periodic plagiarism of my writings as flattery rather than anything else.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:27 am
I want to protect my research results because Japanese articles need time to be translated into other language.
For me, C is the most important.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:27 am
I agree with (B) and with a smaller emphasis also to (A). First, I want my work being available for other scientists so that they can use it and find the results of my paper on the web, in search engines etc. Equally true I want to use my work for my research which includes and for my teaching.In my field Mathematics, plagiarism ist not a problem. Thus the benifit of publishers is based on their ability to guarantee long term access to publishes articles, up to date search and access software, and widespread availability of my work.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:24 am
B is most important but also A and C are very important.
July 12th, 2007 at 7:05 am
The sole objective of publication must be accessibility and visibility. This is already implied by the term “publication”. To achieve other objectives, there are many other ways and outlets. As an editor of a Elsevier journal (the Journal of Financial Intermediation) I do hope Elsevier has no other objectives in its corporate strategy.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:46 am
B.
My main objective is the accessibility and visibility of our publications.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:43 am
All of the three options mentioned are of prime and of about equal importance
July 12th, 2007 at 6:40 am
B
Accessibility and visibility are the key issues for publication of scientific data. These promote futher progress of scientific progress, dialogue and mutual exchange of data and ideas.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:37 am
I support “A”. I will be happy whenever another guy will read and use something of my thought.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:36 am
My choice is (B) because the main motivation to publish is to make the results known to the world, and to allow all those who are interested to access through online and print versions as well as through search engines.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:35 am
The more others make use of my research the better the world will be. I want others not me to use my material.
In fact, all my publications contain the words
“This work is copyright. It may be reproduced subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of its source.” I think that all Elsevier publications should contain the same statement.
A and B are supported totally. The only aim from the second part of C “prevention of illegal copying” is to allow a very few to make money. In virtually all cases, the cost of doing this is greater than the benefits.
Make it possible for any person to make up to a 1000 copies of your work a year and watch your reputation grow.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:27 am
(B) is my opinion the only option. Otherwise, why publish at all?
July 12th, 2007 at 6:27 am
I agree primarily with B because science should be public domain
July 10th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
I support “B” I believe that the main use of scientific articles is visibility and accessibility.This maximized extending a published paper impact and hopefully promoting additional advances.,
June 25th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I vote for (b).
June 15th, 2007 at 1:25 am
I’ll have to vote for (b). There are two reasons I publish: firstly to promote my own research activities to people working in similar fields around the world, and secondly, to disseminate what I believe to be interesting information. This is all done in the spirit of sharing information to advance the cause of science. Having control or ownership of published work is not important to me. Obviously ownership is important to the lawyers at Elsevier. As far as I am concerned my published work is in the public domain. Anything commercially valuable I will patent.
June 14th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
My main concern on copyright is part (c).
June 14th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
I prefer broad exposure of my articles: in print, on the web and in search engines.This mostly option b I gather. I have encountered plagiarized parts of papers I wrote but they were in an irrelevant journal. I have reacted to the editor of that journal but nothing came of it. However, I feel that the benefits of exposure far outweigh the occasional infringement.
June 14th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Simply stated- b)