Skip to content

Research at St Andrews

Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

DOI

Open Access permissions

Open

Standard

Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge : the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century. / Fyfe, Aileen; McDougall-Waters, Julie; Moxham, Noah.

In: Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 51, No. 4, 01.12.2018, p. 597-615.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Fyfe, A, McDougall-Waters, J & Moxham, N 2018, 'Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century', Victorian Periodicals Review, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 597-615. https://doi.org/10.1353/vpr.2018.0045

APA

Fyfe, A., McDougall-Waters, J., & Moxham, N. (2018). Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century. Victorian Periodicals Review, 51(4), 597-615. https://doi.org/10.1353/vpr.2018.0045

Vancouver

Fyfe A, McDougall-Waters J, Moxham N. Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century. Victorian Periodicals Review. 2018 Dec 1;51(4):597-615. https://doi.org/10.1353/vpr.2018.0045

Author

Fyfe, Aileen ; McDougall-Waters, Julie ; Moxham, Noah. / Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge : the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century. In: Victorian Periodicals Review. 2018 ; Vol. 51, No. 4. pp. 597-615.

Bibtex - Download

@article{be0f6177f1ca481382bd6b8f8a16fdb3,
title = "Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge: the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century",
abstract = "In this paper, we consider the Royal Society's attitudes towards the copying, reprinting, and reuse of material from its Philosophical Transactions during the long nineteenth century. The contents of the Transactions circulated in print in a variety of ways beyond its traditional biannual parts and bound annual volumes. This included the private circulation of authors' separate copies of papers; the reissuing of papers in authors' collected works; the incorporation of material into other books; and the reporting and excerpting of material in the general scientific periodical literature. The Royal Society attempted to protect the originality and priority of the research published under its imprint, but it never sought to use copyright legislation to prevent (or to profit from) the reprinting or reuse of its research. We argue that copyright was in fact a poor tool for learned institutions like the Royal Society, which were more concerned with reputational credit than with financial credit and were adept at managing the delicate balance between institutional interests and those of individual authors. We demonstrate that the Royal Society's approach to reprinting and reuse was based on the philanthropic concept of a scholarly common good. It typically relied on a code of conduct enforced through tradition and moral suasion, rather than legislation.",
author = "Aileen Fyfe and Julie McDougall-Waters and Noah Moxham",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1353/vpr.2018.0045",
language = "English",
volume = "51",
pages = "597--615",
journal = "Victorian Periodicals Review",
issn = "1712-526X",
publisher = "Johns Hopkins University Press",
number = "4",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge

T2 - the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century

AU - Fyfe, Aileen

AU - McDougall-Waters, Julie

AU - Moxham, Noah

PY - 2018/12/1

Y1 - 2018/12/1

N2 - In this paper, we consider the Royal Society's attitudes towards the copying, reprinting, and reuse of material from its Philosophical Transactions during the long nineteenth century. The contents of the Transactions circulated in print in a variety of ways beyond its traditional biannual parts and bound annual volumes. This included the private circulation of authors' separate copies of papers; the reissuing of papers in authors' collected works; the incorporation of material into other books; and the reporting and excerpting of material in the general scientific periodical literature. The Royal Society attempted to protect the originality and priority of the research published under its imprint, but it never sought to use copyright legislation to prevent (or to profit from) the reprinting or reuse of its research. We argue that copyright was in fact a poor tool for learned institutions like the Royal Society, which were more concerned with reputational credit than with financial credit and were adept at managing the delicate balance between institutional interests and those of individual authors. We demonstrate that the Royal Society's approach to reprinting and reuse was based on the philanthropic concept of a scholarly common good. It typically relied on a code of conduct enforced through tradition and moral suasion, rather than legislation.

AB - In this paper, we consider the Royal Society's attitudes towards the copying, reprinting, and reuse of material from its Philosophical Transactions during the long nineteenth century. The contents of the Transactions circulated in print in a variety of ways beyond its traditional biannual parts and bound annual volumes. This included the private circulation of authors' separate copies of papers; the reissuing of papers in authors' collected works; the incorporation of material into other books; and the reporting and excerpting of material in the general scientific periodical literature. The Royal Society attempted to protect the originality and priority of the research published under its imprint, but it never sought to use copyright legislation to prevent (or to profit from) the reprinting or reuse of its research. We argue that copyright was in fact a poor tool for learned institutions like the Royal Society, which were more concerned with reputational credit than with financial credit and were adept at managing the delicate balance between institutional interests and those of individual authors. We demonstrate that the Royal Society's approach to reprinting and reuse was based on the philanthropic concept of a scholarly common good. It typically relied on a code of conduct enforced through tradition and moral suasion, rather than legislation.

U2 - 10.1353/vpr.2018.0045

DO - 10.1353/vpr.2018.0045

M3 - Article

VL - 51

SP - 597

EP - 615

JO - Victorian Periodicals Review

JF - Victorian Periodicals Review

SN - 1712-526X

IS - 4

ER -

Related by author

  1. Open Scholarship and the need for collective action

    Neylon, C., Belso, R., Bijsterbosch, M., Cordewener, B., Foncel, J., Fyfe, A., Friesike, S., Jacobs, N., Katerbow, M., Laakso, M. & Sesink, L., 11 Oct 2019, Knowledge Exchange. 100 p.

    Research output: Book/ReportBook

  2. Scientific Publications

    Fyfe, A., 27 Sep 2019, Companion to the History of the Book (2nd edition). Rose, J. & Eliot, S. (eds.). Wiley-Blackwell

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

  3. Managing the growth of peer review at the Royal Society journals, 1865-1965

    Fyfe, A., Squazzoni, F., Torny, D. & Dondio, P., 15 Jul 2019, In : Science, Technology and Human Values. Online First, 25 p.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

  4. What the history of copyright in academic publishing tells us about Open Research

    Fyfe, A., 3 Jun 2019

    Research output: Non-textual formWeb publication/site

  5. It's not all about the money: To help learned societies adjust to Plan S, treat them as more than just publishers

    Fyfe, A., 1 May 2019, Research Fortnight, p. 15 1 p.

    Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationArticle

Related by journal

ID: 256169144

Top