SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION ISSUES
A NEWSLETTER FOR THE UIUC COMMUNITY
February 9, 2005
Paula Kaufman, University Librarian, Editor
NIH POLICY ON ENHANCING ACCESS TO NIH-FUNDED RESEARCH
Institutes of Health (NIH) announces its policy on enhancing public access to
archived publications resulting from NIH-funded research. Beginning May 2, 2005,
NIH-funded investigators are requested to submit to the NIH National Library of
Medicine's (NLM) PubMed Central (PMC) an electronic version of the author's
final manuscript upon acceptance for publication, resulting from research
supported, in whole or in part, with direct costs from NIH. The author's final
manuscript is defined as the final version accepted for journal publication, and
includes all modifications from the publishing peer review process.
This policy applies to all research grant and career development award mechanisms, cooperative agreements, contracts, Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards, as well as NIH intramural research studies. The policy is intended to: 1) create a stable archive of peer-reviewed research publications resulting from NIH-funded research to ensure the permanent preservation of these vital published research findings; 2) secure a searchable compendium of these peer-reviewed research publications that NIH and its awardees can use to manage more efficiently and to understand better their research portfolios, monitor scientific productivity, and ultimately, help set research priorities; and 3) make published results of NIH-funded research more readily accessible to the public, health care providers, educators, and scientists.
This final NIH Public Access Policy (the “Policy”) reflects modifications and clarifications to the proposed policy released September 3, 2004, in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts and September 17, 2004, in the Federal Register and the more than 6,000 public comments received through November 16, 2004. The most significant change in the Policy from that originally proposed is to provide more flexibility for authors to specify the timing of the posting of their final manuscripts for public accessibility through PMC. The proposed policy indicated a six-month delay of posting through PMC. The Policy now requests and strongly encourages that authors specify posting of their final manuscripts for public accessibility as soon as possible (and within 12 months of the publisher's official date of final publication). The Policy also clarifies that the publication date is the publisher's official date of final publication.
PUBLIC INTEREST ADVOCATES QUESTION NIH ENHANCED ACCESS POLICY
Public interest supporters of the NIH Enhanced Public Access Plan today declared the just-announced policy falls short of their expectations and long-standing recommendations. In a letter addressed to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Michael Leavitt, the Alliance for Taxpayer Access outlined its key concerns with the NIH plan:
• The policy is entirely voluntary. Although NIH research in question is funded by taxpayer dollars, the agency is leaving the decision up to each author whether to make their research results available.
• The policy lacks any definitive time frame or deadline by which NIH-funded research must be available for public use.
• The policy puts grant recipients in the untenable position of trying to meet the contradictory expectations of their funding agency and their publisher. 2/3/05
GOOGLE TESTING VIDEO SEARCHING
Google recently launched a test service to search video from ABC, PBS, Fox News and others—throwing its hat into a market already being staked out by major rivals. At the same time, Google search competitor Yahoo Inc. said it had beefed up content on its own video search service. Google began indexing video for its Google Video service in December. The new service helps users find what they're looking for by searching the closed captioning text that runs with the video. Unlike other services that find and play video clips, Google's initial version shows selected text, up to five still video images and a variety of viewing information. The announcement from the Web search leader came amid broad speculation that Google had been building a repository of searchable video content much in the way it is archiving books housed in major libraries. Yahoo launched the test version of its video search service in December, the same month privately held Blinkx unveiled its beta of Blinkx TV. Its service also searches content on Yahoo's own movie, music and news sites. Reuters 1/25/05 http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=7417063
£1.7m KEEPS MEDIEVAL BOOK IN U.K.
The Macclesfield Psalter, a compendium of medieval piety and outrageously bawdy jokes, will stay in East Anglia, where it was made in about 1320, thanks to a national appeal which has raised the £1.7m to match the auction price offered by the Getty Museum in California. The Getty withdrew its offer yesterday and the book will go to the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. Donations of £180,000 from the public and grants of £500,000 from the Art Fund charity and £860,000 from the National Heritage Memorial Fund helped save the scruffy little book whose plain cover hides one of the greatest surviving examples of English manuscript illumination. The psalter came to light two years ago when Sotheby's was valuing the Earl of Macclesfield's library. Only two comparable manuscripts are known: one in the British Museum, the other, in France, pulverised by bombing during the first world war. The Guardian 1/25/05 http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1397698,00.html
There was a sad news item recently about 130,000 penguins doomed to die because of the havoc wrought on their environment by climate-warming. … It's been a disastrous year for the other Penguin as well. Last spring the imprint's super-agglomerated parent group, Pearson, brought on-stream its new, airport-sized warehouse at Rugby. The computer operating system, predictably, crashed. … From April to June the system stayed obstinately down. Penguin books were scarcer than Penguin's teeth. Delivery, almost a year later, is still constipated and hiccupy. The firm's profits and share price have been hit. High-profile authors have requested compensation for what they see as trade negligence. Penguin is resisting. Letters of explanation have been sent out, but no compensation. Penguin was founded, 70 years ago, with a revolution in book distribution. Following his wife's advice, Allen Lane launched his "paperbacks", costing a mere sixpence, in Woolworths. They quickly flooded the country's bookshops. Lane was guided by two principles: he would publish only the best books. And they would be handsome books. Penguin, and its flock of subsidiary imprints, notably Pelican, went on to do more for the education and cultural uplift of the country than all the universities and their teachers combined. The Guardian 1/24/05 Read more at http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1396997,00.html
HISTORY GOES HIGH-TECH ON THE NET
'[W]hile the Wisconsin Historical Society contains one of the largest American history archives anywhere, fewer people have visited in recent years – 40 percent fewer than in 1987. More and more of them, including students at the nearby University of Wisconsin, turn to the Internet as their basic research tool. So the historical society and many other institutions with large collections are doing something they see as a way to survive: They're going digital – creating and uploading images of many items in their collections for all the Web to see. "History belongs to everybody. It shouldn't be locked away in dark rooms," says Michael Edmonds, deputy administrator of the Wisconsin Historical Society's library archives division. "It should be on everybody's laptops at Starbucks."...[Digitization and open access are] a trend that Edmonds calls "revolutionary" – and necessary. "Our future depends on us being able to turn our collections inside out – to show people what we have," he says.' Associated Press 1/25/05 Open Access News 1/26/05 http://www.thenewstribune.com/business/story/4482143p-4219411c.html
UNIVERSAL LIBRARY STEALS GOOGLE'S THUNDER
While Google has been reaping a PR bonanza over its plan to digitize the holdings of five major libraries, Carnegie Mellon University's Universal Library has been quietly pursuing the same goal for years. "Our objective is to ultimately take the works of man… digitize it and make it free to everybody," says CMU computer science professor Michael Shamos. Thus far, the Universal Library has amassed a collection of 100,000 e-books and is aiming for a million by the end of 2006. To expand the collection beyond the public domain arena, the Universal Library has worked out arrangements with more than 60 publishers—most of them university presses, scholarly groups and research institutes—to digitize some 51,000 copyrighted titles of out-of-print works. Depending on funding, the Universal Library is considering approaching commercial publishers with a similar deal, sweetened by the addition of a "Buy It" option that users could click on to purchase print-on-demand copies of out-of-print books. "Users want that sort of thing," says CMU librarian Denise Troll Covey. "We know from research that they like to find things online but use them in print. But the other thing is we have many publishers that are more likely to say 'yes' to use if… they know they'll generate revenue." (WGMS 18 Jan 2005) ShelfLife, No. 191 (January 27, 2005) http://www.wgms.com/index.php?nid=65&sid=171896
ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM OF MOVING TARGETS
A basic problem for scholars who use digital resources is the lack of persistent identifiers—permanent and trusted Internet addresses—for online objects. For libraries and publishers, solving this problem is critical. What's the incentive in investing in rich, hyperlinked scholarly writing if the material keeps moving or disappearing altogether? This was one of the key concerns raised during a panel discussion sponsored by the Digital Library Federation to identify problems and find ways that libraries could partner with those who are building digital archives to help them meet their digital scholarship needs. The panel identified a need for several digital tools, including those that would enable them to: gather information from multiple sources, along with related metadata; search images; visualize patterns and trends; annotate text, image and multimedia files. Participants also expressed concern about ownership rights to their work, while recognizing the need for systems that provide a long-term safe haven for digital content. (CLIR Issues Jan/Feb 2005) ShelfLife, No. 191 (January 27, 2005) http://www.clir.org/pubs/issues/issues43.html#panel
SEEKING BETTER WEB SEARCHES
New search engines are improving the quality of results by delving deeper into the storehouse of materials available online, by sorting and presenting those results better, and by tracking your long-term interests so that they can refine their handling of new information requests. In the future, search engines will broaden content horizons as well, doing more than simply processing keyword queries typed into a text box. They will be able to automatically take into account your location—letting your wireless PDA, for instance, pinpoint the nearest restaurant when you are traveling. New systems will also find just the right picture faster by matching your sketches to similar shapes. They will even be able to name that half-remembered tune if you hum a few bars. Scientific American 1/24/05 LISNews.com 1/27/05 http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0006304A-37F4-11E8-B7F483414B7F0000
DON'T CALL IT A CRISIS: DESPITE TOUGH YEAR, U. PRESS OF KANSAS IS HEALTHY
It is a too familiar story these days—a university press struggling through a difficult year. But while the University Press of Kansas (UPK), the imprimatur under which six Kansas universities publish, is unfortunately headed for a deficit this fiscal year, longtime director Fred Woodward offers a word of caution: "It would be tempting to fit our financial downturn for FY 05 into the 'scholarly publishing crisis' storyline," he said. "That's not the case here, I can assure you." Rather, Woodward noted, although the press is having a "below-average year," that is not altogether unexpected and is rather common for all presses given recent budget scenarios. Woodward confirmed that the press was on track to log an "operating expense" for FY 05 of $421,000—about 21 percent of net sales. But after the press receives its institutional support, the deficit should fall to a manageable $109,120. "What we are is a poster child for a stable, sound scholarly publishing program," Woodward told the LJ Academic Newswire. "As I told our Board of Trustees [the six chief academic officers of the press' contributing universities], FY 05 is nothing but a bump in the road and UPK's future is as bright as ever."
As for that bump in the road, there have been a few for UPK. In FY05, the press published fewer books—49, as opposed to 55 in the previous year. Woodward attributes that to "abnormally high seasonal list attrition," in other words, authors not delivering manuscripts on time, a familiar occurrence in university press publishing. In addition, the press absorbed a $44,000 cut in its state funding, but Woodward said that cut caused no "retrenchment." For the past two decades, UPK has operated in the black when taking into account institutional support. In 2004, the press, which publishes in a number of disciplines, including one of the nation's premier lists in military history, won seven book awards, an impressive haul. Despite the financial shortfall in FY05, and an array of challenges facing scholarly communication in general, Woodward remains confident about the press' future. He notes that his board is "fully committed" to the press, with an increased number of books planned in FY 06. "We have a rock-solid publishing program," he said, "and the only plan is to do a bit more of the same." Library Journal Academic News Wire: January 27, 2005
PEW REPORT: MOST SEARCH ENGINE USERS CAN'T DISTINGUISH PAID RESULTS
Before librarians and those in academe get too comfortable leaving so many digital solutions to companies like Google, consider this: only one in six Internet search engine users can tell the difference between unbiased results and paid search advertisements. According to a new study by the Pew Internet and American Life Project
(http://www.pewinternet.org/), only 38 percent of web users even know of the distinction between the two, and just 47 percent say they can always tell which results are from paying advertisers. Pew researchers say they are surprised at the results, as 92 percent of web searchers say they are confident about their searching abilities. The study also showed that many searchers are relatively unsophisticated in their use of search engines. Just 44 percent use a single search engine, with 47 percent using it no more than once or twice a week. Despite their difficulty in discerning unpaid results, nearly half of all users say they would stop using search engines if they thought the presentation of paid results wasn't made clear. On other hand, a core of 32 percent use search tools more seriously. Pew data shows that these users tend to male, young, better educated, with higher income and longer online experience. They also are more likely to be able to differentiate between paid and unpaid results. Library Journal Academic News Wire: January 27, 2005
BLACKWELL ADDS A RECORD 37 NEW PUBLISHERS, AND NEW CFO
Developments in scholarly publishing are pushing publishers in new directions, and one of those directions is definitely Blackwell Publishing. Blackwell announced that it has added a record 37 new publishing partnerships, representing a total of 65 new journal titles. Over 600 scholarly societies now publish with the company, furthering the company's status as the world's largest society publisher. This year, Blackwell will publish more than 750 academic and professional journal titles. Of the new additions, 26 come from academic societies, five from university presses, and the rest from commercial publishers. Since 1995, more than 300 journals have transferred to Blackwell Publishing, 130 of which were formerly self-published within a university department or by an academic or professional society. During the same period, Blackwell Publishing launched 95 new journals of its own. For the full list of 2005 journals, see www.blackwellpublishing.com/press/pressitem.asp?ref=228&site=1. So what's driving the record move? Blackwell's Robert Harington told the LJ Academic Newswire he couldn't point to any one cause, but said it likely has something to do with the company's reputation as a society publisher. "I believe our internal culture is reflected in the way we work with our external customers, libraries, societies," Harington said. "I guess, our approach to specific issues such as open access is then framed in reference points, determined by societies, their members, and by our library customers, and this proves quite appealing." Indeed, company officials note that 98 percent of the societies with whom Blackwell initially partners stay with the publisher. In other Blackwell news, the publisher announced that Christopher Hall will become Chief Financial Officer on February 1, replacing Mark Houlton, who retired from Blackwell after 14 years with the company. In his post, Hall will oversee Blackwell Publishing's global finances, as well as human resources and facility operations within the UK, and also will be a member of Blackwell Publishing's management committee and board of directors. Library Journal Academic News Wire: January 27, 2005
SUPREME SHOWDOWN SET FOR LANDMARK P2P CASE
The U.S. Supreme Court has set March 29, 2005 as the date for oral argument in the landmark P2P case, MGM v. Grokster. A final ruling, likely by June, will determine whether technology makers are responsible for infringements committed by users of their products. The suit was first brought by a group of major studios in 2001 against the makers of the Morpheus, Grokster, and Kazaa software products. Thus far, both the District Court, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled in favor of the P2P makers (see LJ Academic Newswire 8/24/03). The case has shaped up as ruling on par with the famous "Betamax" case, in which the Supreme Court cleared the way for the VCR in 1980. In fact, in its affirmation of the District Court's dismissal of the MGM suit, the Ninth Circuit took a page from the "Betamax" ruling, acknowledging that, even if more than 90 percent of downloads over P2P networks were illegal, as the plaintiffs in the MGM action claim, the high number of legal uses is still significant enough to merit protection of the technology. Library Journal Academic News Wire: January 27, 2005
GERMAN LIBRARY OBTAINS LICENSE TO BREAK COPY-PROTECTION
EDRI reports that the German national library (Deutsche Bibliothek) has negotiated a license with rightholders to legally circumvent copy protection mechanisms on CD-roms, videos, software and e-books. The German Federation of the Phonographic Industry and the German Booksellers and Publishers Association have agreed to allow the library to fulfill its legal obligation to collect and make available material for long-term archiving purposes. The agreement also allows the library to break digital locks on books and music for scientific purposes of users, for collections for school or educational purposes, for instruction and research as well as on works that are out of print. BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 1/27/05 Release at http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de/frankfurtgroup/drms/drms.html
UK TOP 200 SELLERS EQUAL 10.8% OF ‘04 MARKET
The UK’s top 200 bestselling books of 2004 moved a combined 73.5 million copies, or 10.8% of the total 677.9 million units sold, during the year, as measured by Nielsen BookScan. Among those 200 titles were 10 that exceeded a million copies each, 22 that moved between a million and 500,000 units and 101 that sold between half a million and 200,000 copies. The remaining 67 titles sold between 200,000 and 155,000 copies. Put another way—books that sold fewer than 155,000 copies made up 89% of the total sales tracked by BookScan. The Book Standard 1/27/05 Read more at http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/retail/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000778544
REED BUSINESS AND NBC LAUNCH NEW NATIONAL BOOK AWARDS
On Tuesday, January 25, Reed Business Information and the NBC Universal Television Stations announced that the two companies had joined forces to launch "The Quill Awards (The Quills)," a new national book award that honors excellence in book publishing and includes consumers in the voting process. The Quills will honor winners in more than 15 different categories, including Book of the Year, Rookie of the Year, and Lifetime Achievement. The first Quill Awards will be presented in October 2005, during a ceremony that will be carried on 14 NBC Universal television stations. Bookselling This Week 1/27/05 http://news.bookweb.org/read/3199
RIAA SUES ANOTHER 717 FILE-SWAPPERS
The RIAA has filed 717 new lawsuits against alleged file-swappers, including 68 unnamed people at universities. The suits come several days after the record label group filed its arguments with the Supreme Court in a case examining the broader legal liability of file-swapping software companies, and a day after the MPAA filed its own round of suits against alleged file-swappers. BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 1/28/05 http://news.com.com/2110-1027_3-5553517.html
COPYRIGHT OFFICE SEEKS COMMENTS ON “ORPHAN WORKS”
"The Copyright Office seeks to examine the issues raised by "orphan works,'' i.e., copyrighted works whose owners are difficult or even impossible to locate. Concerns have been raised that the uncertainty surrounding ownership of such works might needlessly discourage subsequent creators and users from incorporating such works in new creative efforts or making such works available to the public. This notice requests written comments from all interested parties. Specifically, the Office is seeking comments on whether there are compelling concerns raised by orphan works that merit a legislative, regulatory or other solution, and what type of solution could effectively address these concerns without conflicting with the legitimate interests of authors and right holders." Be Spacific 1/27/05 Federal Register 1/24/05 http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-1434.htm
ROUND TWO OF MPAA SUITS
The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has filed a second round of lawsuits against an undisclosed number of U.S. users suspected of illegally trading copyrighted movie files. The group first filed lawsuits against individuals in November, followed by legal action against Web sites that function as file-trading hubs, including BitTorrent, eDonkey, and DirectConnect networks. MPAA Chief Executive Officer Dan Glickman said, "We cannot allow people to steal our motion pictures and other products online, and we will use all the options we have available to encourage people to obey the law." The MPAA also released a software tool called Parent File Scan that identifies file-sharing software on a computer, as well as movie and music files that might be protected by copyright. The software does not differentiate between legal and illegal files, and it does not monitor or block any downloads. Rather, it identifies files of a wide range of formats and leaves decisions about which are legitimate up to users, most of whom presumably will be parents. CNET, 26 January 2005 Edupage, January 28, 2005 http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-5551903.html
IS CANADA HEADED TOWARD A DMCCA?
Michael Geist’s weekly Toronto Star “Law Bytes” column examines whether Canada may be headed toward a Digital Millennium Copyright Canada Act. The column explores the risks associated with technological protection measures alongside anti-circumvention legislation and the potential that Canada may adopt DMCA-like provisions into its copyright law. BNA's Internet Law News (ILN) - 1/31/05 http://geistcanadiandmca.notlong.com
UK PUBLISHING’S CONTINENTAL DRIFT
A pronounced continental drift characterizes UK publishing nowadays – ownership of the big groups has moved across the Atlantic to Europe. The battle for supremacy is now between the Germans, the French, and the British, waged by Bertelsmann, Hachette, and Pearson. It is only a matter of time before this struggle moves to the US, where the vulnerability of groups such as Simon & Schuster and Time Warner could prove tempting to the Expansionist Europeans….There is one main reason European groups now dominate. Traditional book publishing does not provide the kind of growth or earnings potential necessary to have US corporate executives whipping out their checkbooks. As a consequence, groups such as News Corp. and Time Warner have chosen to invest in new media such as television and the Internet. By contrast, European businesses, with a strong history of family ownership, have been attracted to the steady income streams provided by book publishing. More at The Book Standard 1/31/05 http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/global/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000779820
SCHOOL NEWS: FIRST AMENDMENT? WHAT FIRST AMENDMENT?
A University of Connecticut survey of more than 100,000 high school students has found that educators are failing to give high school students an appreciation of the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and a free press. Commissioned by the Knight Foundation, the $1 million, two-year study found that nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted; seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal; half believe the government can censor the Internet; and more than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Knight Foundation chief executive Hodding Carter III says, “These results are not only disturbing; they are dangerous. Ignorance about the basics of this free society is a danger to our nation¹s future.” (Knight Foundation 31 Jan 2005) NewsScan Daily, 1 February 2005 http://www.knightfdn.org/default.asp?story=news_at_knight/releases/2005/2005_01_31_firstamend.html
CONSUMER GROUP REPORT: TEXT BOOK PUBLISHERS OVERCHARGE
Textbook publishers issue new editions when none are needed, "bundle" books with unnecessary supplementary material, and charge American students more than they charge students overseas for the same books, according to a report issued February 1 by the State Public Interest Research Groups. The report, "Ripoff 101," is a follow-up to a report of the same name issued in 2004 that led to a Congressional hearing on textbook pricing last summer (The Chronicle, July 21, 2004). In the new report, the student division of the environmental and consumer- advocacy group charges that publishers often issue new editions of books that are nearly identical to older editions. The report calls on publishers to issue new editions "only when educationally necessary." The Association of American Publishers countered that the report is based on flawed methodology and that new editions of textbooks are necessary to keep up with the latest information. The trade group pointed to a recent study, conducted by the Zogby polling organization for the association, that it says undermines the "Ripoff 101" report. Chronicle of Higher Education 2/2/05 http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2005/02/2005020205n.htm
UK GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO COMMITTEE REPORT ON OPEN ACCESS
The UK government released a new response (dated January 26, released February 1) to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's response (November 8, 2004) to the government's rejection of the committee's report (July 20, 2004) on open access and STM publishing. Excerpt: 'The Government should be supporting the best and most cost effective way possible to channel scientific outputs and at the moment it is not demonstrable that the 'author pays' model is the better system....DTI has not sought to neutralise the views of JISC....The Government has not decided against the author-pays model, but does not want to force a premature transition to a different system. To strongly endorse or reject the author-pays approach would not be in the interests of allowing the market itself to evolve to meet the needs of authors and the wider academic community....The Government recognises the potential benefits of Institutional Repositories and sees them as a significant development worthy of encouragement. But it believes that each Institution has to make its own decision about Institutional Repositories depending on individual circumstances.' Open Access News 2/1/05 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/249/249.pdf
PUBLISHERS IRRITATED BY GOOGLE’S DIGITAL LIBRARY
A spat is brewing between academic publishers and Google over the Internet-search company's plans to digitize and index library collections at major research universities. Late last year, Google, based in Mountain View, California, announced a decade-long project to scan millions of volumes at the universities of Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, and Oxford, as well as the New York Public Library. The resulting archive would allow computer users worldwide to search the texts online. But some publishers complain that they weren't consulted by Google, and that scanning library collections could be illegal. Under the scheme, people searching with Google would find library volumes relevant to their query at the top of their search results. Clicking on a title would allow them to browse images of the full text of works in the public domain. Only brief excerpts and bibliographic data would be shown for material under copyright. Participating libraries would also be given a digital copy of their collection. Google describes the initiative as an extension of Google Print (http://www.print.google.com), which is based on agreements with publishers and allows the full text of books to be searched. Google Print's results provide a brief excerpt of the text, together with a link to publishers or booksellers that sell the book and to libraries that hold it. But Google has not yet struck any legal agreements with publishers, either individually or collectively, for the research-library initiative, says Sally Morris, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, the international trade body for not-for-profit publishers. Few publishers would want to opt out of the library scheme, Morris says — but they need to be asked to provide the appropriate permission. Copyright material generally carries some variation of a warning banning the reproduction, storage or distribution of copies of the work without the publisher's permission. Scanning a book constitutes making a copy and so is only allowed with permission, say lawyers from several publishers. They also argue that an exception under US law that allows libraries to copy texts for preservation purposes would not apply in this case. Nor would making copies for 'fair use', given that Google is a commercial company. A spokesman for Google says that it will "respect the rights of copyright holders", and that it "prefers to work directly with publishers to bring copyrighted books online". Google "has been working closely with publishers to help them connect with more readers online", he adds. Part of the uncertainty stems from the fact that there seems to have been little discussion so far between Google and publishers, says Terry Hulbert, head of electronic development and strategy at the UK Institute of Physics. "Someone clearly needs to have a chat with the 800-pound gorilla sat in the corner," he observes. "There is no question that Google should have spoken to the learned societies and publishers beforehand. Systematic digitization of copyright content is absolutely something they cannot do without seeking approval of the rights holders." Peter Kosewski, director of publications and communications at Harvard University Library, says the library believes that the way Google intends to handle copyright works is consistent with the law. Harvard is carrying out a pilot with Google on 40,000 titles before making a decision on digitizing its entire 15-million-volume collection. "We have a number of questions that will be answered by the pilot project, and that includes copyright issues," he says. "We think it is a great programme Google has put together." Nature 2/3/05 http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v433/n7025/full/433446a_fs.html
EMERALD CHAIRMAN OFFERS SOME RECOMPENSE TO LIBRARIES OVER DUPLICATION
In response to charges of improper article duplication among Emerald journals, CEO Keith Howard has issued a press release both defiant and conciliatory, but offered little real explanation as to how republication occurred at Emerald. Howard, who serves as chairman of Emerald Group Publishing, acknowledged that when he first heard about the charges put forth by Cornell librarian Phil Davis, his reaction "was to doubt that this was a major issue." That view, he wrote, was "quickly disabused" after Davis continued his research and the issue was taken up at the American Library Association Midwinter Meeting in Boston. In the statement, Howard offered a "qualified mea culpa," and an invitation to host up to five directors of Association of Research Libraries (ARL) libraries at the Emerald offices in Bradford, UK, to examine the company's processes—at Emerald's expense. "We are satisfied that having taken the necessary steps to address the specific problems identified by Mr. Davis that our processes of control should match those of any publishing company of standing," Howard wrote. Howard also made two other offers: compensation to customers in instances where they may have "suffered from significant and unambiguous republication, e.g. in the unusual case of journals with different titles carrying substantially the same content" and to "endow research to address issues of significance to the librarian/LIS community, in a manner to be agreed with the American Library Association (ALA)." It was unclear how compensation would be determined or made, or what the research endowment might look like. To read Howard's release, visit: http://taddeo.emeraldinsight.com/vl=1435079/cl=137/nw=1/rpsv/news/press/dual2005.htm. Howard also reported that an in-house audit turned up a total of 560 duplicated articles, representing a total of 1.1 percent of the Emerald database—more than the 409 examples previously cited by Davis. At press time, it was unclear whether that 1.1 percent figure included all database content, including such things as book reviews, or just academic articles, which are the focus of Davis' research. Further, it is unclear whether the 1.1 percent figure applies to the current size of Emerald's database or the database in 1999, when Howard says the republication had mostly stopped. Howard did acknowledge three instances of republication in 2003, which he said were "due to author or administrative error." A graph provided by Emerald showed a dramatic spike from 1994 to 1997, with republished articles soaring from around 20 articles per year to roughly 110 articles per year during that period. After 1997, article republication tapered off. In the closest thing to an explanation for the republication, Howard wrote that "overlapping ownership of the range of journal companies probably led to what was felt to be appropriate republication to satisfy the needs of distinctly different communities." The Emerald statement addresses findings in two separate publications by Davis, THE ETHICS OF REPUBLISHING.; A CASE STUDY OF EMERALD/MCB UNIVERSITY PRESS JOURNALS, expected to be published in the Spring 2005 edition of LIBRARY RESOURCES & TECHNICAL SERVICES (LRTS) and a follow-up letter to the editor of LRTS, expected publication Summer 2005. A preview of Davis' work is currently available on his web site at: http://people.cornell.edu/pages/pmd8/emerald.doc. Library Journal Academic News Wire: February 03, 2005
WHILE ADMITTING MISTAKE, EMERALD ALSO AIMS AT THE MESSENGER
While offering a measure of recompense and a "qualified mea culpa," for republishing content, Emerald Chairman Keith Howard also questioned the motivation of the librarian who first brought the matter to light. Although Howard wrote that the company has "acknowledged and accepted the problem," he also suggested that the "magnitude of the problem had been overstated" and questioned the "even-handedness" of Cornell librarian Phil Davis. "[Davis] appears to accept without question that the other publishers he cites are virtually 'whiter than white' in the matter of republication," Howard writes. "It would seem, therefore, that his somewhat gratuitous aim of 'educating the publishing industry' is rather unnecessary; which causes me to reflect again on what his aims might be." Howard then seems to question why Davis is singling out Emerald: "Is Mr. Davis in a position to guarantee that other publishers satisfy expected standards in the matter of republication? If he cannot offer such a guarantee, should he not extend his study to include a number of these in order that he may reach a conclusion which is eneralisable? [sic] Or is potential bias acceptable in a study of this nature?" Davis, meanwhile, told the LJ Academic Newswire that he was reviewing Howard's release, and considering a response. Library Journal Academic News Wire: February 03, 2005
The scholarly communications are also on line at TUhttp://www.library.uiuc.edu/administration/scholarly_communication/UT