Der Streit um die Regelung des Zweitveröffentlichungsrechts im Urheberrecht
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author's right to a secondary publication (in addition to a first publication in a commercial journal of the author s choice) is discussed from the perspective of the different actors in scientific publication markets. The challenge for a copyright regulation of this right becomes even more complex because it is seen by many as indirectly, if not directly fostering the open access paradigm. First and foremost, this right strengthens the autonomy of the authors, but it is also understood as an obligation of the authors to have their institutions make these works publicly available, at least those works which have been supported by public funding. Such an institutional mandate is believed by some, at least in Germany, to contradict the freedom of science as guaranteed in the German constitution. The article provides some arguments to the effect that the right to a secondary publication and a concomitant institutional mandate is compatible with freedom of science.
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 | 0.033 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".