Site Meter

Going Digital: The Future of Reprints?

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. I think long attachments in bulk mailings are Not Nice. It can have nasty effect on recipient email systems if they get several. And if everyone starts doing it….

    No, if you’re going to go digital, include a link to an online copy, not an attachment.

    I understand the downside: people may be less likely to click through than look at an attachment, which is one reason why I haven’t done this yet. But I think mass mailing of huge attachments is to be avoided.

  2. Eric Goldman says:

    Wow, being a direct marketer is filled with lots od difficult choices! Eric.

  3. Alan says:

    Unfortunately, you may be behind the curve on this one. I just got page proofs for a Springer article, and THEY CHARGE FOR ELECTRONIC COPIES! They included an order form on which I could order digital reprints (pdfs) at only slightly less than the cost of paper reprints. I’m not sure what the protection mechanism is (though circumventing it would likely violate the DMCA), and one can always download the article from a database later (Lexis, ProQuest) and email it around. My guess is that we’ll see much more of that.

    MF’s idea of linking to an electronic copy will only work for people who have access to the resource. Certainly lawyers will generally have access to Lexis and Westlaw, and academics will have access to other full-text databases. But some policy-oriented folks and practitioners will not have access to the academic full-text databases (which is where most all the peer-reviewed articles go). Perhaps ssrn would work, but I’m not sure if publishers will allow final electronic reprints to be re-published there.

    And for what it’s worth, I really like paper reprints. And until I get a double-sided printer, I don’t especially like printing out long articles. Maybe the best route is to send paper to the audience you’re trying to grow, e-copies to those you think will want a copy and don’t have electronic access, and mere notices to those you think will seek out the article.

  4. Bruce says:

    It’s sort of related to your Con #1, but I think even favorably disposed people may be less likely to read a PDF than a reprint. Put something nicely printed (with a fancy cover and all) in front of me and I’ll feel an irresistable urge to read it (particularly if other work is pressing). But if I have to take even a few small steps (open, print, staple), I’ll keep putting it off.

    On the circumvention front, depends on who owns the copyright. If you own the copyright to your own article, you can circumvent to your heart’s content. It’s not really circumventing in that case, it’s more venting.

  5. joe patent says:

    Alan,

    Wouldn’t your suggestion (“one can always download the article from a database later (Lexis, ProQuest) and email it around”) violate a user agreement of Lexis?

    Generally, if the author still retains the copyright in the article, could you get the pdf printed at a local printshop (e.g., Kinko’s) on decent paper and mail that? Perhaps the cost will be lower.

    I agree with the other posters that a hardcopy is often more enjoyable (and easier) to read. Easier to read on the Metro or while walking to class.

    At the same time, filing and organizing pdfs makes much more sense these days.

  6. I always negotiate to retain copyright in my work, and when I cannot, I try to negotiate the right to distribute the work on SSRN, on my website, or in electronic form. Therefore, none of the copyright issues or Lexis/Westlaw agreement issues are really pertinent unless authors haven’t been able to negotiate the rights in their work with the law reviews.

    I’d like to keep the focus on the question of what people would prefer. Do people still want to receive the actual reprint? It seems like a very expensive luxury, which is why it might be better to move to a digital reprint system — unless there are some very strong preferences for physical reprints or other reasons why the digital article distribution system is problematic.

    I agree with Michael Froomkin that it is best to send links rather than attachments so as not to clog up people’s email.

  7. geoff manne says:

    I have 3 words for you: Google Desktop Search. Who wants paper copies when you can archive and search through an electronic copy upon receipt (and we are all hooked up to limitless servers, right?) and make much more effective use of the article (a benefit which inures to both the recipient and the sender). I may continue to send out paper reprints because the norm has not (yet) shifted, but I certainly would prefer receiving electronic ones.

  8. Joe Patent says:

    A variation of Eric’s suggestion:

    Send a hardcopy to select recipients followed (a week or two later) by an e-mail including a link or attachment of the electronic version of the article. In the e-mail, you can include a note to the effect of “This is an electronic version (for your convenience) of the hardcopy you should have received already.”

    Just e-mailing to everyone shifts the costs (e.g., time, cost, and annoyance of printing) to your readers. I’m on the younger side and I still prefer to read the hard copy version of a long article.

    The question is what portion of your recipients are the ones likely print the article.

  9. Joe,

    One of the primary reasons for moving to a digital system is to avoid the very extensive cost of ordering hundreds of reprints and mailing them out. Therefore, to send hardcopies first and then offer electronic versions later defeats a lot of the purpose.

    Reprints cost a law school quite a bit of money. GW has around 80 faculty members. Many write multiple articles each year. Let’s say we produce 100 articles per year. With a reprint bill such as what I am facing for the piece I discuss in my post, that’s about $1000 per article, or $100,000 for the school to pay (not including postage, envelopes, and stationary). Now, $1000 is unusually high for a reprint order, but more typical figures in the $500 to $700 range still end up costing a school a lot of money.

    You’re right that some of the costs are shifted when people have to print out papers, but it is considerably cheaper this way. With any extensive mailing of reprints, there are only a subset who actually are interested in reading them. A lot of reprints thus wind up going to waste. With the printing out of papers, only those interested in reading the paper will print it out. When you’ve got a mailing list with hundreds of names on it like mine, the difference in total cost can be significant. Ultimately, if most law professors move toward a digital system, then it will cost law schools considerably less.

  10. John Oberdiek says:

    I think its worth noting that Philosophy & Public Affairs, perhaps the premier journal in moral and political philosophy, has already made the switch to PDF reprints.

  11. Chad Dunlap says:

    One thing you might want to consider is to send a letter via snail mail to all the entries in your database asking them if they would like an electronic version or paper version of your articles. Once you have this information you could create another table in your database to place the answer.

    This might reduce the number of hard copies you need to order and not offend anyone by sending them a PDF when they really want a paper copy.

    Just an idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image