1. The existing journals have been calling many journals fake and have been running a campaign against them. The existing journals themselves have been taking what should have been openly accessible materials and putting it behind a paywall.
2. In a landmark case cited in the AIR manual, the Bombay High Court in the past ruled that if a journalist has been employed or commissioned to write an article, then the copyright of the article vests with the employer or the one engaging the journalist. In contrast, if an article has already been written before employment or commission, then the copyright vests with the author.
3. This clear thought or ideology is violated in the case of research publications. In almost all cases, the research being written about or reported on, is done as a part of an employment or as a grant received by the researcher. And much of the time, the funds for the employment or grant come from the taxpayers, and is taken to be in the interests of humanity in the short or long run.
4. The researchers claim ownership of the copyright and happily sign off the copyrights to the journals they are submitting their notes, papers and articles to. And the journals monetise this copyright at exorbitant prices and make it financially inviable for access to by the original taxpayers.
5. This seems to be a clear violation of the thought and philosophy referred to in the second paragraph above. How is this allowed?
- in good faith, krishnamb.
No comments:
Post a Comment