Public Access to Biomedical Research
http://www.100md.com
《新英格兰医药杂志》
To the Editor: The Journal's support (Sept. 23 issue)1 for the proposal of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to make the results of NIH-sponsored research more readily available to the public2 is commendable, as is its policy of making articles freely available six months after the publication date. However, the editorial by Drs. Drazen and Curfman makes misleading claims regarding copyright. The editorialists say that the Journal "will continue to seek redress if others use what we publish for commercial purposes." Authors would benefit most from the widest possible distribution of their work, commercial or noncommercial. They also suggest that copyright must be held by publishers in order to protect "intellectual integrity." But whether or not copyright is transferred, authors retain the moral rights associated with an article, including the rights of integrity and of attribution.
Not owning copyright in no way prevents a publisher from taking legal action in the case of misuse or misrepresentation. Since both the publishers' and the authors' reputations are at stake, publishers should defend scientific integrity — which does not depend on ownership of copyright. Scientific integrity should not be used as a smokescreen by publishers to conceal their self-interest.
Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D.
Jan Velterop, Drs.
BioMed Central
London W1T 4LB, United Kingdom
velterop@biomedcentral.com
Drs. Cockerill and Velterop report that they are both directors of BioMed Central.
References
Drazen JM, Curfman GD. Public access to biomedical research. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1343-1343.
Enhanced public access to NIH research information. (Accessed December 1, 2004, at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html.)
To the Editor: The discussion of copyright issues is predicated on a misunderstanding of the implications for intellectual property considerations of the policy proposed by the NIH. Many publishers currently deposit some or all of their journals' content in PubMed Central, the full-text version of PubMed. When publishers do so, they do not relinquish copyright to the articles. In its "Supplemental Terms of Use for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)," for example, the National Academy of Sciences lists a number of binding stipulations for users accessing PNAS through PubMed Central.1 These include the explicit requirement that any further reproduction of the journal (beyond standard terms of fair use) in any medium be accompanied by the written permission of the academy. In other words, it is simply not true that, as Drazen and Curfman state, "under the proposed rule, a commercial entity could republish [an article from the Journal], highlighting the benefits but ignoring the disadvantages, and attribute the work to the Journal."
Andy Gass
Public Library of Science
San Francisco, CA 94107
agass@plos.org
References
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Supplemental Terms of Use for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). (Accessed December 1, 2004, at http://www.pnas.org/misc/nlmterms.shtml.)
Drs. Drazen and Curfman reply: We believe that publishers should retain copyright to articles, because it is central to protecting their integrity. It is not clear from the language of the NIH proposal that copyright would be maintained in the version of the work they propose to host, and certain participants in the debate, including the Public Library of Science, have proposed using Creative Commons' protections, which would allow broad use, only by attribution and not granted permission, of research publications, including commercial republication with the potential for alterations.
One of our objectives in writing the editorial was to ensure that the issue of copyright was addressed. We believe it is important to be on the record with our views and experiences, and we have filed the editorial with the NIH as part of the public-commentary period on the proposed regulations concerning open access in the hope that the NIH will specifically address copyright protections. We do not assume that the copyright processes or rules of PubMed Central, to which Gass refers, would carry over to the NIH repository, because other elements of the current implementation of PubMed Central are incompatible with the NIH proposal.
We disagree with Cockerill and Velterop that publishers can effectively protect the integrity of published research without owning copyright — our experiences have shown us how aggressive and cavalier some infringers can be. Authors are typically not in a position to detect or prosecute copyright violations. More important, journals, along with authors, have a justifiable interest in protecting the intellectual integrity of published articles, since journals invest substantial editorial resources in ensuring the validity and accuracy of the research. Vigorous protection of copyright is clearly in the best interest of the medical community and of the patients it serves.
Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D.
Gregory D. Curfman, M.D.
Not owning copyright in no way prevents a publisher from taking legal action in the case of misuse or misrepresentation. Since both the publishers' and the authors' reputations are at stake, publishers should defend scientific integrity — which does not depend on ownership of copyright. Scientific integrity should not be used as a smokescreen by publishers to conceal their self-interest.
Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D.
Jan Velterop, Drs.
BioMed Central
London W1T 4LB, United Kingdom
velterop@biomedcentral.com
Drs. Cockerill and Velterop report that they are both directors of BioMed Central.
References
Drazen JM, Curfman GD. Public access to biomedical research. N Engl J Med 2004;351:1343-1343.
Enhanced public access to NIH research information. (Accessed December 1, 2004, at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html.)
To the Editor: The discussion of copyright issues is predicated on a misunderstanding of the implications for intellectual property considerations of the policy proposed by the NIH. Many publishers currently deposit some or all of their journals' content in PubMed Central, the full-text version of PubMed. When publishers do so, they do not relinquish copyright to the articles. In its "Supplemental Terms of Use for Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)," for example, the National Academy of Sciences lists a number of binding stipulations for users accessing PNAS through PubMed Central.1 These include the explicit requirement that any further reproduction of the journal (beyond standard terms of fair use) in any medium be accompanied by the written permission of the academy. In other words, it is simply not true that, as Drazen and Curfman state, "under the proposed rule, a commercial entity could republish [an article from the Journal], highlighting the benefits but ignoring the disadvantages, and attribute the work to the Journal."
Andy Gass
Public Library of Science
San Francisco, CA 94107
agass@plos.org
References
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Supplemental Terms of Use for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). (Accessed December 1, 2004, at http://www.pnas.org/misc/nlmterms.shtml.)
Drs. Drazen and Curfman reply: We believe that publishers should retain copyright to articles, because it is central to protecting their integrity. It is not clear from the language of the NIH proposal that copyright would be maintained in the version of the work they propose to host, and certain participants in the debate, including the Public Library of Science, have proposed using Creative Commons' protections, which would allow broad use, only by attribution and not granted permission, of research publications, including commercial republication with the potential for alterations.
One of our objectives in writing the editorial was to ensure that the issue of copyright was addressed. We believe it is important to be on the record with our views and experiences, and we have filed the editorial with the NIH as part of the public-commentary period on the proposed regulations concerning open access in the hope that the NIH will specifically address copyright protections. We do not assume that the copyright processes or rules of PubMed Central, to which Gass refers, would carry over to the NIH repository, because other elements of the current implementation of PubMed Central are incompatible with the NIH proposal.
We disagree with Cockerill and Velterop that publishers can effectively protect the integrity of published research without owning copyright — our experiences have shown us how aggressive and cavalier some infringers can be. Authors are typically not in a position to detect or prosecute copyright violations. More important, journals, along with authors, have a justifiable interest in protecting the intellectual integrity of published articles, since journals invest substantial editorial resources in ensuring the validity and accuracy of the research. Vigorous protection of copyright is clearly in the best interest of the medical community and of the patients it serves.
Jeffrey M. Drazen, M.D.
Gregory D. Curfman, M.D.