Re: Authors rights: Going too far

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Upon hindsight, I must first admit that the words I chose in my 
previous post, 'livid' and 'ridiculous' are somewhat hyperbolic. 
To those who base their retort on the choice of these words, I'm 
happy to substitute 'concerned' and 'problematic.'

Surveys and interviews of authors repeatedly confirm that 
author-rights are not very important to academics in their choice 
where to publish. To argue that authors don't understand what 
they are signing essentially confirms that they are ambivalent 
about author rights and put more weight on other journal 
characteristics, namely: prestige, timeliness, peer review, etc.

Contrary to the storybook version of science, in which scientists 
tirelessly and selflessly toil to advance knowledge and the 
welfare of society, we must accept a more realistic view in which 
the scientists are principally motivated by their desire to 
obtain recognition from their peers. The formal publication 
process represents this exchange of information (manuscripts) for 
social recognition [1]. Geog Franck describes scientific 
communication as a 'vanity fair.' [2]

What initially irked me about Heather Morrison's post was the 
real notion that librarians may be basing their collection 
decisions on the values *they* believe are important, as opposed 
to the values authors and readers believe are important. Garvey's 
seminal book in which he coined the well-known phrase 
'communication is the essence of science' [3] did something 
amazing for the field of librarianship, he *actually recognized* 
librarians as peers in the communication process -- not glorified 
secretaries and clerks, but peers! It therefore concerns me when 
the ethos of librarianship (or perhaps the disproportionate 
voices of a few), changes the role of the librarian from helping 
to *facilitate* the scholarly communication process to 
controlling it. Or to be more explicit, exerting their own values 
into a model that has been developed to serve those who are not 
librarians. This is the basis of my earlier reference to my 
mother making me eat my greens.

While I acknowledge the other side of the argument (librarians as 
fiscal managers, librarians as social welfare maximizers, 
librarians as championing the rights of the disenfranchised), we 
are essentially arguing from different value frames. I see the 
role of librarians as facilitators of the formal scholarly 
communication process [4]. This is a position of great 
responsibility and something not to dismiss lightly. I don't 
imagine that these values will ingratiate me with a list devoted 
to librarianship, although I feel they need to be expressed since 
they underscore the rationale of my previous post.

--Phil Davis

Notes:

[1] Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: 
Basic Books.

[2] Franck, G. (1999). Scientific Communication--A Vanity Fair? 
Science, 286(5437), 53-55.

[3] Garvey, W. D. (1979). Communication, the essence of science : 
facilitating information exchange among librarians, scientists, 
engineers, and students. New York: Pergamon Press.

[4] I want to distinguish the formal publication process as a 
small part of the whole scholarly communication process. Most of 
the communication of science is informal.