Bibliographic record
Abstract
The latest version of the ‘take back the copyrights’ movement within universities in reaction to the so-called serials crisis in scholarly publishing is the recommended adoption of an author's addendum to standard publishing contracts. This article explores the variety of forms this addendum has taken so far and raises questions about its effectiveness in achieving the goals sought. The author's addendum, it is argued, is (1) misleading to the extent that it is based on an incomplete understanding of the causes of journal price inflation; (2) superfluous in recommending reuses that are already allowed under most publishers’ policies; (3) too blunt an instrument for dealing with the many important differences that exist between publishing in the sciences and publishing in the humanities and social sciences; (4) insufficient to protect publishers’ investments to the extent that some versions recommend giving publishers only non-exclusive rights; (5) legally questionable insofar as it relies on an opt-out procedure for publishers’ acceptance; (6) confusing when it relies on unviable distinctions such as commercial versus non-commercial use; (7) troubling to the degree that it fosters an even greater digital divide between book and journal content; and (8) systemically reallocative because it will undermine an important source of revenue for supporting journal and monograph publishing by university presses, complicate the process of negotiating contracts with authors, and thereby increase the financial burden for the universities that currently support presses. This article first appeared in Against the Grain, Vol. 20, No. 3, June 2008; it has been slightly modified to conform to JSP style.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.159 | 0.144 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".