15

I have been asked to become a MathSciNet reviewer. I personally find the database very useful, but I am a bit held back by the fact the database is kept behind a paywall.

What is actually the licensing/copyright status of reviews submitted to MathSciNet? Do authors keep the copyright and are allowed to post copies on their websites (like the AMS license for its journals)? If so, does anyone actually do the latter?

The information is nowhere to be found on MathSciNet, and actually I have never seen anyone releasing their reviews somewhere else.

Nate Eldredge
  • 133,015
  • 44
  • 379
  • 480
Klaus
  • 252
  • 2
  • 7
  • 5
    It's a good question. I am a reviewer and I found my original invitation letter. It says "We must ask each reviewer to grant all rights, including copyright, to the American Mathematical Society for each review written for us. A paper copy of form will be sent to you within in a few days; we ask that you sign it, thereby granting such rights to the AMS, and return it to us." I can't find my copy of this form, but I'm sure you could ask them to send you the form before you decide. – Nate Eldredge Oct 24 '18 at 16:54
  • 2
    In view of the journal policy, I would guess that AMS would probably not object to someone posting their own reviews, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone do this. – Nate Eldredge Oct 24 '18 at 16:55
  • 5
    Back in 2016, when I was invited to review, mathscinet did not grant me the right to post my reviews under an OA license on my site. Not sure if they still are following this policy (I declined to review for this very reason, so I don't get updates from them). – darij grinberg Oct 25 '18 at 05:37
  • 2
    This question on MathOverflow is very relevant, and puts the moral dilemma about writing for a paid subscription service in (what I think is) an interesting perspective. – Dan Romik Oct 26 '18 at 03:58
  • 3
    I see no dilemmas here, moral or otherwise. They want unpaid work from me, they don't get to pose constraints on what else I do with it. This is standard across most of the online content-generating community. – darij grinberg Oct 26 '18 at 05:31
  • 2
    @darijgrinberg a Creative Commons license is not a constraint? Anyway, even if there’s no dilemma for you, this question’s OP describes having a dilemma, and it sounds like his conflict is of a moral or ethical nature. – Dan Romik Oct 26 '18 at 10:19
  • 1
    @DanRomik No, a Creative Commons license is not a constraint for the content creator. They are still free to do what they want with the content, including selling and re-licensing it. – Federico Poloni Nov 28 '18 at 13:57

2 Answers2

29

Here are some answers to your questions: Yes, MathSciNet is behind a paywall. Yes, we ask reviewers to give us copyright to their reviews. Yes, you can post your reviews elsewhere. In return, for each review, we put US$12 on account at the AMS (up from the US$8 it was a few years ago) for the reviewer to use to buy AMS books, to pay (part of) your AMS membership, or to pay for other things (such as t-shirts). The credit is in the form of "AMS Points".

Why the copyright? This helps us to copyright the whole database. Copyrighting a database is rather different from copyrighting a journal or a conference proceedings volume.

Can you post the reviews? The reviewer letter says, "You may post your reviews on your website, circulate them to colleagues, distribute copies to your students, and make other customary scholarly uses. You may even include your reviews in journals, books, and databases in the particular field(s) of mathematics to which they relate, provided that first publication credit is given to the AMS."

Why the paywall? Creating and maintaining MathSciNet is expensive. It costs millions of dollars per year to run it. The subscription model allows us to cover the costs. It would take a lot of donations or ads to make up for that.

Why so expensive? We work hard to make sure that we get things right. In order to do this, Mathematical Reviews has a staff of 80 people. That includes 18 PhD mathematicians who serve as editors. We also have people with advanced library degrees and experience that ensure that our bibliographic data is complete and correct. We have cataloguers who ensure that we correctly identify authors. We have copy editors who help out with the reviews and check references. We have a whole department who work with the reviewers (and their reviews). We have an IT department.

I hope this is helpful. If not, post a comment!

--
Edward Dunne
Executive Editor
Mathematical Reviews

Edward Dunne
  • 451
  • 3
  • 5
9

Option 1: Refuse on principle.

Do seriously consider telling MathSciNet you'll gladly accept, if they were to drop their paywall and make their content publicly accessible; which they will likely refuse.

But if you do this, don't just leave it at that, but rather engage with AMS policy-makers to at least make the case for opening up MathSciNet; and also make this known to your colleagues and encourage them to do the same. I'm not saying you must do so.

Option 2: Use the Standard Trick.

Now let's assume you're willing to contribute, but don't want at least your review to be hidden off from the world. So, as @NateEldredge suggests in a comment - AMS says they "must ask each reviewer to grant all rights etc. etc."

Well this is where the standard trick comes in - which is also useful for journals and conferences which try to one-up you legally by requiring you sign over your rights: Just before sending them your review, put it up on your personal web-page or blog. Use a relevant license such as Creative Commons, GFDL or others. Once you've done so - even if you sign away your rights, you can re-acquire them from the on-line version... if you want to be air-tight legally safe a bit more, make sure at least one person you can count on has downloaded a copy, and thus has the rights - you can then argue that he gave you rights again after you've signed yours away.

Caveats:

  • I have not had any interaction with MathSciNet, this is general advice.
  • IANAL; and while I have some legal experience, that is always country-specific.
einpoklum
  • 39,047
  • 6
  • 75
  • 192
  • 1
    If the journal license agreement grants an exclusive license, your "standard trick" could be fraud, which is a crime. – Anonymous Physicist Mar 27 '21 at 09:44
  • @AnonymousPhysicist: No, it would not be fraud. Now, it's true that MathSciNet could change the text so to make using the standard trick more problematic, but they haven't to my knowledge. – einpoklum Mar 27 '21 at 10:20
  • Do you have a reason for claiming that granting a license you can't legally grant is not fraud? – Anonymous Physicist Mar 27 '21 at 10:21
  • @AnonymousPhysicist: It doesn't work that way. If you claim something is fraudulent, the onus of establishing that claim is on you. – einpoklum Mar 27 '21 at 10:27
  • 1
    I think I already did that, but I'll go again. Fraud is intentional deception. Intentionally granting a an exclusive license after already intentionally granting another license is intentional deception. Therefore it is fraud. – Anonymous Physicist Mar 28 '21 at 00:52
  • I do not give legal advice. – Anonymous Physicist Mar 28 '21 at 00:53
  • @AnonymousPhysicist: Ok, let's discuss the (brief) case you've made. There are several issues with it, but two main ones: 1. Is deception occurring? 2. Intention to deceive. I'd argue none of them is happening . 1. MathSciNet are asking OP for a review of something, and he provides them the review. They don't have a basis to expect the review to be something that has never been communicated to anyone else; and they haven't asked OP to declare anything to that effect. So, no deception. 2. Scientists, or perhaps even all people, have a good-faith basis of assuming that ... – einpoklum Mar 28 '21 at 09:21
  • ... all scientific information is inherently something of public interest which is to be shared by all humanity. They are never to be expected to hide research findings, data, comments, reviews and such. So, catering to a theoretical hope of some publisher to manipulate people into paying the publisher by preventing access to scientific material - that is a strange, counter-intuitive, and socially disadvantageous behavior which people cannot be expected to engage in. – einpoklum Mar 28 '21 at 09:24
  • 1
    If the license agreement grants an exclusive license, the intent to deceive is unambiguous. You are right about public interest, but I doubt you are correct about the law. – Anonymous Physicist Mar 28 '21 at 09:55
  • Let's assume you are right about the law; then surely the for profit publishers will immediately change their license agreements to forbid this trick. – Anonymous Physicist Mar 28 '21 at 09:56
  • @AnonymousPhysicist: No, not surely. There are multiple reasons why that would not happen. Perhaps the most significant is the fact that most MathSciNet reviews don't seem to be available elsewhere (as OP suggests). – einpoklum Mar 28 '21 at 10:02