On Nov 30, 9:29*pm, JosephKK wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 16:46:13 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Nov 27, 12:58 pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Nov 25, 11:26 am, Jim Lux wrote:

Jim
IEEE state that if papers were open source it would threaten the
presence of the IEEE?

No.. it's that a significant part of IEEE's budget derives from
publishing copyrighted standards and journals. One argument for the
copyrighting of standards is that it provides a legal club to go after
someone publishing an adulterated version. I'm not sure that really
holds water, but there it is.
The cost of actually printing the journals is significant, and has to
come from somewhere. *They're not exactly huge circulation, and mostly
have no advertising, but are printed on high quality stock with good
quality typesetting.

The physical printing costs are actually minimal, distribution costs
more now.



This statement was in regard to the high costs of obtaining copies
from the IEEE without
having to pay the high costs of belonging .

The cost to get a single copy is quite high compared to the cost to
get access to thousands by being a member (check out those CCC prices
at the bottom of the first page.. they're fairly pricey.. a dozen
papers a year and you've just paid for your membership and access to
Xplore)

Just a few years ago i could get physical reprints of articles from
most journals for about $3 each, now electronic reprints cost $20 or
more? *I think we all can figure out where the money is going.





I understand the need for
peer review by academics but not necessarily a private entity
and the IEEE rights to publish such so, are the IEEE demanding SOLE
ownership of presented papers?

IEEE performs a useful function by organizing all those peer reviewers
(finding them, getting the papers to them, haranguing them for their
reviews, etc.).. Being an editor is a lot of work, and is often done
as a labor of love by the editor (or, as "part of your job" in
academe), as is being a decent reviewer. IEEE requests copyright
transfer to them for papers published in their journals for a variety
of reasons, and with a variety of exceptions.
1) Makes sure that you're not publishing the same thing in multiple
places at the same time..
2) If your work was done, e.g., on gov't contract, often, the contract
requires that the paper be public domain, and the IEEE is cool with
that.
3) The author can publish the paper on their own website with an
appropriate disclaimer.

I am assuming that all papers presented by the Universities as well as
thesis papers belong to the parent university
based on a recent antenna patent awarded to a University derived from
a student dissertation.

Not necessarily ("all" is pretty all-encompassing).. A lot depends on
the funding source for the work.

This leaves
*an outstanding question !. If the university a public entity,
reserves the rights of all papers arrived at the university
then what rights do they hold that allows transference from the public
domain of those rights to a private institution to the detriment of
the public
that finance them?

Those rights were never in the public domain to begin with. One might
argue that the underlying idea is in the public domain, but the
written description of has a copyright that belongs to the author
(except for a "work for hire") and the author gets to decide what they
do with it.

Funny thing about "work for hire", the hiring entity is the one with
any legal rights here in *the US. *But the NIH for some strange reason
does not assert its rights. *The IEEE does not publish work for hire
generally, but charges for submissions.

*And, I would argue that arranging for the publication of
the work in a "learned journal" is a pretty effective way of
disseminating the work to the general public. The fact that IEEE (or
Inst of Physics or AAAS, etc.) get an assignment of copyright as part
of the process is part of the cost of doing that publication. *And
it's a fact that as online publication becomes easier, work IS being
disseminated by these means.

Yes, but more an more by others, and the academic journals reviewers
are not paid. The other publishers do not do the review so quality
suffers. *The old school publishers need to learn that they cannot
just take it all.



However, one should not disregard the significant value brought to the
process by the formalized peer review system. Yes, it has flaws and
can be (and has been) subverted, but it works moderately well.

Compare to the situation a hundred or two hundred years ago. *I don't
complain that "the system" isn't moving as rapidly as technology might
allow, because the system has a fairly long time constant, which is
actually a good thing, since it prevents rapid whipsawing to follow
fashion. * A printed journal will still be readable 100 or 200 years
from now. *The same cannot necessarily be said of djvu or pdf or tiff
or other elecronic forms.

I am not so sure about that. *The need for preservable media is being
recognized. *It has even been discussed in learned journals.



One should also not complain too loudly about the lack of heritage
journals on line for free. *It costs a LOT to scan thing and put them
online, particularly if they're searchable. *If you could convince
Congress to do it as a service to mankind, that would be a worthy
goal, but for now, someone's got to pay for it.

Regards
Art Unwin

Spoke to my son about this subject as he works for a California
University.
He states that this subject is on a unstoppable role in several states
because of diminishing distribution of papers.
Together with high costs for separate papers that is also diminishing
in demand.and was a money maker
( As jobs are lost so goes the membership costs I suppose)
He said that some Universities are already changing from the old set
up and google is being very agressive about it.
Apparently there is already a group on the net with connections to all
phases of science where you can obtain a
UNPUBLISHED paper for a modest fee so there are new avenues emerging.
Haven't got a policy statement from the local trustees at Champaign
Illinois as yet.
Regards
Art