RE: Scholarly Publishing Groups Issue White Paper on

["Armbruster, Chris" <Chris.Armbruster@EUI.eu>]

For Michael Mabe and this list I have the following quotation 
from Robert K. Merton, which goes way back to 1942 and his 
thoughts on the norms of science and the compatibility of science 
and democracy:

"The substantive findings of science are a product of social 
collaboration and are assigned to the community. They constitute 
a common heritage in which the equity of the individual producer 
is severely limited. An eponymous law or theory does not enter 
into the exclusive possession of the discoverer and heirs, nor do 
the mores bestow upon them special rights of use and disposition. 
Property rights in science are whittled down to the bare minimum 
by the rationale of the scientific ethic. Scientists claim to 
'their' intellectual property are limited to those of recognition 
and esteem which, if the institution functions with a modicum of 
efficiency, are roughly commensurate with the significance of the 
increments brought to the common fund of knowledge."

I have argued that publishers need to understand that in future 
they will need to make their profits from nonexclusive licensing 
in a competitive market. Then commercial publishing and open 
science will be in sync again.

Rephrased as a warning: Publishers that insist on transfer of 
copyright are out of sync with the norms and economics of 
science.

Chris Armbruster

"Cyberscience and the Knowledge-Based Economy, Open Access and Trade 
Publishing: from Contradiction to Compatibility With Nonexclusive 
Copyright Licensing".
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=938119