This week’s Scholarship About Scholarship includes papers on copyright of academic works, law and economics in law schools, publication patterns in economics, law reviews’ ideologically-driven publication of pieces about treatment of sexual minority youth, and gendered construction of scientific excellence.
Centivany, Alissa, Paper Tigers: Rethinking the Relationship between Copyright and Scholarly Publishing. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, Vol. 17, p. 385, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1893590
Discontent is growing in academia over the practices of the proprietary scholarly publishing industry. Scholars and universities criticize the expensive subscription fees, restrictive access policies, and copyright assignment requirements of many journals. These practices seem fundamentally unfair given that the industries two main inputs – articles and peer-review – are provided to it free of charge. Furthermore, while many publishers continue to enjoy substantial profit margins, many elite university libraries have been forced to triage their collections, choosing between purchasing monographs or subscribing to journals, or in some cases, doing away with non-essential materials altogether. The situation is even more dire for non-elite schools, individual scholars, and members of the general public. There is a growing sense within the scholarly community that change is needed, but change, thus far, has come slowly.In this Article, I attempt to neutralize the part of the problem that deals with copyright issues by showing that, at least with respect to copyright, scholarly publishers are paper tigers: the legal basis of their copyright claims is less secure than is commonly assumed. In so doing, I hope to offer universities an alternative approach to promoting change within scholarly publishing.
In Part I, I explain how, despite customary practice and common (mis)understanding, universities in fact own the copyrights in faculty-created works under the work-for-hire doctrine.13 While a common law teacher exception existed at one time to exempt teachers from the operation of the work-for-hire doctrine, Congress failure to codify the exception in the 1976 revisions to the Copyright Act extinguished the old common law rule. In Part II, I describe how, in response, universities developed various policy solutions in an attempt to circumvent the application of the work-for-hire doctrine. However, these solutions fail to satisfy the requirements set forth in the Copyright Act. I argue that while these policy failures have damaging implications for the proprietary scholarly publishing industry, the potential effect on the publics interest in open access to scholarly works is quite promising. In Part III, I explore some of the implications of this revised understanding of the law and address concerns expressed by some scholars and commentators that faculty-creators will be harmed by university ownership of copyright. Finally, I conclude with a series of recommendations that universities could undertake to reduce reliance on the proprietary scholarly publishing industry and empower faculty while promoting open access.
Hersch, Joni and Viscusi, W. Kip, Law and Economics as a Pillar of Legal Education (August 6, 2011). Vanderbilt Law and Economics Research Paper No. 11-35. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1907760
This paper reports the distribution of doctoral degrees in economics and in other fields among faculty at the 26 highest ranked law schools. Almost one-third of professors at the top 13 law schools have a Ph.D. degree, with nine percent having a Ph.D. in economics. Law school rank is highly correlated with the share of faculty holding a Ph.D. in economics and is less correlated with the share of faculty with other doctoral degrees. Law and economics is a major area of legal scholarship based on citations in the law literature and other impact rankings. In recognition of the increased importance of law and economics in legal education, in 2006 Vanderbilt University established a joint J.D./Ph.D. program in law and economics. We provide information on the genesis and operation of the program.
Ellison, Glenn David, Is Peer Review in Decline? (July 2011). Economic Inquiry, Vol. 49, Issue 3, pp. 635-657, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1874501 or doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2010.00261.x
Over the past decade, there has been a decline in the fraction of papers in top economics journals written by economists from the highest?ranked economics departments. This paper documents this fact and uses additional data on publications and citations to assess various potential explanations. Several observations are consistent with the hypothesis that the Internet improves the ability of high?profile authors to disseminate their research without going through the traditional peer?review process.
Groshoff, David, The Wrong Track, Baby – How Damage to Gay Youth was Borne this Way: Via Ideologically Bound Law Reviews Publishing ‘Hopey Changey Stuff’ (August 5, 2011). Cardozo Women’s Law Journal, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1905606
This manuscript uses law reviews treatment of – and impact on – sexual minority youths and adults as the analytic through which to argue that a meaningful problem exists with the law review publication process. Significant ethical issues involve themselves in editorial decisions to publish legal scholarship into the marketplace of ideas. Specific among these issues include law reviews role in advancing the hope that sexual minority youth can change through reparative therapy or via an ability to pray the gay away.This Article addresses how the law review submission and editorial process – particularly at law reviews affiliated with parent entities with ideological missions – has contributed to minority stress, a contributing factor in sexual minority suicide. The manuscript argues that ideologues have furthered their personal agendas by opportunistically leveraging the mission-centered nature of the institution attached to a given law review.
Such a process has led to the exploitation of student-edited law reviews. This misuse has led students to fail to engage in the research and diligence that would be expected of them as members of the bar. As a result, this Article maintains that this ethical failure has resulted in the publication of many fundamentally flawed law review articles upon which legislatures, voters, advocacy groups, public personalities, and courts have relied to the detriment of gay youths across the United States. Serving as a counternarrative to the traditional law review system, this Article proposes several potential improvements to the current system.
Rees, Teresa, The Gendered Construction of Scientific Excellence (June 1, 2011). Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 36, No. 2, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1895431
Academics sign up to the concept of promoting excellence in research by valuing objectivity, independence, theoretical frameworks and an evidence base, even while we might argue about meanings of these concepts and how they should be operationalized. We share a commitment to peer review, even though some may have concerns about invisible biases which may be built into some of the mechanisms we employ to conduct it. So, how do we explain the extraordinarily robust and sustained role that gender continues to play in organizing the academy? Moreover, how do we understand the neglect of the gender dimension in so much research? This paper considers the ways in which gender cuts across the allocation of academic opportunities. It raises questions about the implications of the gendering of the academy on who decides who and what is excellent. It then outlines concerns about the neglect of the gender dimension in research processes. It concludes with recommendations on how to address the gender imbalance in the academy and enhance the attention to gender in research.
mw
