Credit, copyright, and the circulation of scientific knowledge : the Royal Society in the long nineteenth century
MetadataShow full item record
Altmetrics Handle Statistics
Altmetrics DOI Statistics
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.
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
Victorian Periodicals Review
Copyright © 2018 The Research Society for Victorian Periodicals. This work has been made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created accepted version manuscript following peer review and as such may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://doi.org/10.1353/vpr.2018.0045
Items in the St Andrews Research Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.