Physics Journal May Reconsider Wikipedia Ban

I don't believe in imaginary property writes "The flagship physics journal Physical Review Letters doesn't allow authors to submit material to Wikipedia, or blogs, that is derived from their published work. Recently, the journal withdrew their acceptance of two articles by Jonathan Oppenheim and co-authors because the authors had asked for a rights agreement compatible with Wikipedia and the Quantum Wikipedia. Currently, many scientists 'routinely do things which violate the transfer of copyright agreement of the journal.' Thirty-eight physicists have written to the journal requesting changes in their copyright policies, saying 'It is unreasonable and completely at odds with the practice in the field. Scientists want as broad an audience for their papers as possible.' The protest may be having an effect. The editor-in-chief of the APS journals says the society plans to review its copyright policy at a meeting in May. 'A group of excellent scientists has asked us to consider revising our copyright, and we take them seriously,' he says."

Maybe I'm in the wrong field

[elrous0]

I've published to professional journals (as a academic historian) before, and I've never had to surrender copyright to the journal (agreement was strictly for publishing rights). And I don't know any academics who would tolerate that (especially since the vast majority of academic journals don't pay you to publish your article and many articles lead on to books). Is academic physics THAT different?

Re:Some journals are still milking both ends

[pipatron]

What about a fairly high cost for submission (no, not that kind of submission) that you would be refunded if the article is accepted and published?

Re:Or Better Yet

[blueZhift]

Just stop publishing in those journals and create your own. The barriers to entry are pretty low to set up an on-line publication, and even dead tree publishing of scientific papers isn't that expensive.

This is probably just what the journal is afraid of. While getting published in the major, established, peer reviewed journals, is the current road to tenure, fame, and fortune (except maybe for the fame and fortune), that may not always be the case. One of the most important pieces of the puzzle for the advancement of science itself is the peer review process. If the community respects the peers doing the review, then no one will care whether the paper is published in Phys Rev or on the research group's blog. It's the science that matters.

Physicists can be real rebels at times, so I can imagine a group of respected and talented ones getting fed up with the old system and forming a new review and publication platform. With sufficient star power and good science, there's little that anyone could do to stop them. There are probably already private groups doing just that in addition to seeking publication in the more established journals.

Re:Some journals are still milking both ends

[DeadPanDan]

That would give an incentive to reject all submissions. It puts money into the decision making process. Bad bad bad.

it is the journal not the field

[sdb16]

Policy on copyright does differ from field to field, but it is more a matter of the journal than the field. Some journals have enlightened practices, some do not. For example, the Royal Society, which is the UK equivalent of the publisher of Physical Review Letters, has a very enlightened policy, and lets you publish under a creative commons license and retain copyright [royalsociety.org]. The American Physical Society has a far more outdated policy, which looks like it will finally change.

Re:Some journals are still milking both ends

[ceejayoz]

That would give an incentive to reject all submissions.

And how, pray tell, would an academic journal without articles make money?