Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conclusions and Further Research

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Copyright Versus Open Access

Part of the book series: International Law and Economics ((ILEC))

  • 1383 Accesses

Abstract

In conclusion, there are several arguments to believe that the future of academic publishing should be open access. While Shavell (2010) finds that OA may strictly increase researcher’s incentives due to higher readership, our analysis also points to some countervailing effects of OA, especially when reconsidering Shavell’s assumption that most universities will cover the publication costs under an “author pays” model. We show that primarily due to rent seeking motives in the publishing game the incentives to exceed higher efforts may decrease. Nevertheless, we have stressed that this may just correct another distortion that the “publish or perish” environment in academia has enforced: namely the fact that “too many” papers are produced that are hardly ever read. Meho (2007) finds evidence for the fact that 90 % of all published papers are never cited and as many as 50 % of all papers are never read by anybody but the reviewer and the authors themselves. Moreover, we have pointed to the possible benefits but also the costs of OA publishing at the international level, especially when considering the position of developing countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Here, the degree to which an academic work was publicly funded (typically 50 %) may offer a reasonable limitation or qualification of such a mandate. In fact, it will have to be ensured that privately funded research results—e.g. R&D efforts in large companies or research in private research institutions—are excluded. We have pointed to the type of literature that we have in mind when demanding OA—literature that Suber (2012) refers to as royalty free literature. Nevertheless, as also researchers at universities usually receive their salary throughout public funds one may find arguments to also require university researchers to provide OA to their works.

  2. 2.

    We have pointed to the fact that only the post-print version of an academic work—that includes all changes made in the process of revision as well as editing and typesetting improvements—offers a reasonable substitute for the published version.

  3. 3.

    Whether 6 or 12 months is a reasonable embargo period will depend on many aspects. Most importantly, it will depend on the conditions in different academic disciplines whether 6 or 12 months ensures that (1) publishers have an incentive to publish (first mover advantage) and (2) researchers have access to the whole stock of academic literature.

  4. 4.

    See for instance Hayek (1973).

  5. 5.

    Of course, this approach does not ban the author to deposit a copy of her work on a subject-based repository, where the work may be more visible for her peers. However, the requirement to deposit a copy of the final paper version on the university platform would necessarily ease the monitoring of the OA mandate.

  6. 6.

    See the website of SHERPA/RoMEO at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ (last accessed on September 1, 2014) for more information on publisher’s copyright policies and self-archiving.

  7. 7.

    Note that a copyright exception (such as the inalienable right of secondary publication) would also ease the problems associated with the licensing of copyrighted material—which we have discussed in Sect. 4.2.1

  8. 8.

    Note that under the OA model it is not the readers who pay the publication costs, but the authors. However, there are also other forms of income sources that OA publishers revert to (see Fig. 3.11). As a matter of fact, we have seen that only 28.24 % of OA publishers do actually charge author fees.

  9. 9.

    Visit their website at http://www.openaccessweek.org/ (last accessed on September 1, 2014) for more information.

  10. 10.

    Note that our analysis is restricted to academic journal articles only. That is, our analysis deliberately excludes e.g. (academic) books.

Bibliography

  • Abadie, A., Diamond, A., & Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490), 493–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1994). R&d spillovers and recipient firm size. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(2), 336–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, A. (2007). Open access towards bridging the digital divide - Policies and strategies for developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 13(4), 337–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerlof, G. A., Hahn, R., Litan, R. E., Arrow, K. J., Bresnahan, T. F., Buchanan, J. M., Coase, R. H., Cohen, L. R., Friedman, M., Green, J. R., Hazlett, T. W., Hemphill, C. S., Noll, R. G., Schmalensee, R., Shavell, S., Varian, H. R., & Zeckhauser, R. J. (2002). The copyright term extension act of 1998: An economic analysis. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, Brief 02-1. http://www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=16.

  • Allison, P. D., & Stewart, J. A. (1974). Productivity differences among scientists: Evidence for accumulative advantage. American Sociological Review, 39(4), 596–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreff, W., & Szymanski, S. (Eds.) (2006). Handbook of the economics of sport. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoli-Versbach, P., & Mueller-Langer, F. (2013). Open access to data: An ideal professed but not practiced. RatSWD Working Paper Series No. 215. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2224146.

  • Annan, K. (2004). Science for all nations. Science, 303, 925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, C., DeBeer, J., Kawooya, D., Prabhala, A., & Schonwetter, T. (Eds.) (2010). Access to knowledge in Africa: The role of copyright. Claremont: UCT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In R. Nelson (Ed.), The rate and direction of inventive activity (pp. 609–624). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ARWU (2012). Academic ranking of world universities-2012. http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2012.html.

  • Audretsch, D. B., & Feldman, M. P. (1996). R&d spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 86(3), 630–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakos, Y., & Brynjofsson, E. (1999). Bundling information goods: Pricing, profits and efficiency. Management Science, 45(12), 1613–1630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakos, Y., & Brynjofsson, E. (2000). Bundling and competition on the internet. Marketing Science, 19(1), 63–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargheer, M. (2006). Open access und universitätsverlage: Auswege aus der publication crisis. In Internetökonomie der Medienbranche. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benkler, Y. (2002). Coase’s penguin, or, linux and the “nature of the firm”. The Yale Law Journal, 112(3), 369–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently, L. (2010). Introduction to part i: The history of copyright. In L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, & P. Torremans (Eds.), Global copyright. Three hundred years since the statute of anne, from 1709 to cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently, L., & Kretschmer, M. (2013). Primary sources on copyright (1450–1900). www.copyrighthistory.org.

  • Berger, K. P. (1996). Lex mercatoria doctrine and the unidroit principles of international commercial contracts. Law and Policy in International Business, 28, 943–990.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, T. C. (2001). Free labor for costly journals. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 15(3), 183–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom, T. C., Courant, P., & McAffee, R. P. (2013). Big deal contract project. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/BundleContracts.html.

  • Bergstrom, T. C., & McAffee, R. P. (2013). Summary statistics. http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~mcafee/Journal/.

  • Bernius, S. (2010). The impact of open access on the management of scientific knowledge. Online Information Review, 34(4), 583–603.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernius, S., & Hanauske, M. (2009). Open access to scientific literature-increasing citations as an incentive for authors to make their publications freely available. In Hawaii International Conference on System Science (HICSS-42).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernius, S., Hanauske, M., Koenig, W., & Dugall, B. (2009). Open access models and their implications for the players on the scientific publishing market. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 103–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S. M. (1986). Private copying, reproduction costs, and the supply of intellectual property. Information Economics and Policy, 2(1), 5–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S. M., & Raskind, L. J. (1989). New technologies and intellectual property: Collectives that collect. Technical report, Rand Corporation, RAND Report No. R-3751-MF.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besen, S. M., & Raskind, L. J. (1991). An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bitton, M. (2012). Implementing the public sector information directive. European Intellectual Property Review, 34(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjoerk, B.-C. (2004). Open access to scientific publications. An analysis of the barriers to change. Information Research, 9(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjoerk, B.-C. (2012). The hybrid model for open access publication of scholarly articles: A failed experiment? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(8), 1496–1504.

    Google Scholar 

  • BOAI (2002). Budapest open access initiative. http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml.

  • Boldrine, M., & Levine, D. K. (2002). The case against intellectual property. American Economic Review, 92(2), 209–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldrine, M., & Levine, D. K. (2005). Intellectual property and the efficient allocation of social surplus from creation. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), 45–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boldrine, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual property (1st ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Börsenverein. (2011). Börsenverein des deutschen buchhandels. stellungnahme zum gesamtkonzept für die informationsinfrastruktur in deutschland (kii-papier), frankfurt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosch, X. (2009). A reflection on open-access, citation counts, and the future of scientific publishing. Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis, 57(2), 91–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, S. (1970). The uneasy case for copyright: A study of copyright in books, photocopies and computer programs. Harvard Law Review, 84, 281–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, T., Harnad, S., & Les, C. (2006). Earlier web usage statistics as predictors of later citation impact. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1060–1072.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesratsbeschluss. (2013). Mehr open access in der wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabresi, G., & Melamed, D. A. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85(6), 1089–1128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1994). Is science a public good? Fifth Mullins lecture. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 19(4), 395–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campanario, J. M. (1996). Using citation classics to study the incidence of serendipity in scientific discovery. Scientometrics, 20, 4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell. (1994). Campbell, aka skywalker, et al. v. acuff-rose music, inc. (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZS.html.

  • Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1994). Minimum wages and employment: A case study of the fast-food industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. American Economic Review, 84(4), 772–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castells, M. (2000). The information age: The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavaleri, P., Keren, M., Ramello, G. B., & Valli, V. (2009). Publishing an e-journal on a shoe string: Is it a sustainable project? Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 89–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cetto, M. A. (2001). The contribution of electronic communication to science - Has it lived up to its promise? In Proceedings to the 2nd ICSU-UNESCO International Conference on Electronic Publishing in Science, 20–23 February, UNESCO House, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. C. (2003). Business models for open access journals publishing. Online Information Review, 30(6), 699–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, J. P. (2012). Bundling information goods. In M. Peitz & J. Waldfogel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the digital economy (pp. 273–305). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian, G. E. (2008). Open access initiative and the developing world. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 18(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3(1), 1–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coccia, M. (2006). Economic and social studies of scientific research: Nature and origins. Working Paper CERIS-CNR, 8(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cofer, C. N., & Apply, M. H. (1967). Motivation: Theory and research. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989). Innovation and learning: The two faces of r&d. Economic Journal, 99(397), 569–596.

    Google Scholar 

  • Congleton, R. D., Hillman, A. L., & Konrad, K. (2008). 40 years of research on rent seeking 1. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conney-McQuat, S., Busch, S., & Kahn, D. (2010). Open access publishing: A viable solution for society publishers. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 101–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coolidge, H. J., & Lord, R. H. (1932). Archibald cary coolidge: Life and letters. New York: Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, W. (2010). The statute of anne 1709-10: Its historical setting. In L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, & P. Torremans (Eds.), Global copyright. Three hundred years since the statute of anne, from 1709 to cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corrigan, R., & Rogers, M. (2005). The economics of copyright. World Economics, 6(3), 153–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, I., Plume, A. M., McVeigh, M. E., Pringle, J., & Amin, M. (2007). Do open access articles have greater citation impact? A critical review of the literature. Publishing research consortium. Journal of Informetrics, 1(3), 239–248.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30(5), 699–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, H. (1974). Beyond boredom and anxiety: The experience of play in work and games. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, B. (2011). Orphan works problem: Preserving access to the cultural history of disadvantaged groups. Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice 20, 275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple, D. (2003). Scientific knowledge as a global public good: Contributions to innovation and the economy. In J. M. Esanu, & P. F. Uhlir (Eds.), The Role of Scientific and Technical Data and Information in the Public Domain: Proceedings of a Symposium (pp. 35–49). Washington: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1987). Information disclosure and the economics of science and technology. In G. R. Feiwel (Ed.), Arrow and the ascent of modern economic theory. New York: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., & David, P. A. (1994). Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy, 23(4), 487–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, P. A. (1993). Intellectual property institutions and the panda’s thumb: Patents, copyrights and trade secrets in economic theory and history. In NRC (pp. 19–61).

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. M. (2009). Author-choice open access publishing in the biological and medical literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(1), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. M. (2011). Open access, readership, citations: A randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. The FASEB Journal, 25, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P., Lewenstein, B., Simon, D., Booth, J., & Connolly, M. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads and citations. British Medical Journal, 337, a568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. M., Lewenstein, B. V., Simon, D. H., Booth, J. G., Connolly, M. J. L. (2008). Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: Randomized control trial. British Medical Journal, 337, a568. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/337/jul31_1/a568.

  • Deci, E. L., Koester, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deene, J. (2010). The influence of the statute of anne on Belgian copyright law. In L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, & Torremans, P. (Eds.), Global copyright. Three hundred years since the statute of anne, from 1709 to cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (1970). The private production of public goods. Journal of Law and Economics, 13, 293–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demsetz, H. (2009). Creativity and the economics of the copyright controversy. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 6(2), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewatripont, M., Ginsburgh, V., Legros, P., Walckiers, A., Devroey, J. P., Dujardin, M., et al. (2006). Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. (1986). The life-cycle research productivity of mathematicians and scientists. Journal of Gerontology, 41(4), 520–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. (2000). The complementarity of scientometrics and economics. In B. Cronin & H. B. Adkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: A festschrift in honor of eugene garfield (pp. 321–336). New Jersey: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. (2004). Zvi grichiles’s contributions to the economics of technology and growth. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 13(4), 365–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, A. M. (2005). Measurement, incentives and constraints in stigler’s economics of science. The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 12(4), 635–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • DMCA (1998). The digital millenium copyright act of 1998. U.S. copyright office summary. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf.

  • Donahue, C. (2004). Medieval and early modern lex mercatoria: An attempt at the probatio diabolica. Chicago Journal of International Law 5, 21

    Google Scholar 

  • ECReport. (2006). Study on the economic and technical evolution of the scientific publication markets in Europe. EC Report. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf.

  • Edlin, A. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2004). Exclusion or efficient pricing? The “big deal” bundling of academic journals. Antitrust Law Journal, 72, 128–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edlin, A. S., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (2005). Competition policy for journals: The bundling of academic journals. American Economic Review, 95(2), 441–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eger, T. (2013). Einige bemerkungen zur aktuellen diskussion um das urheberrecht aus ökonomischer sicht. In H. Curti & T. Effertz (Eds.), Die ökonmische Analyse. Entwicklung und Perspektive einer interdisziplinären Wissenschaft (pp. 121–140). New York: Peter Land Academic Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eger, T., & Scheufen, M. (2012a). Das urheberrecht im zeitenwandel: Von gutenberg zum cyberspace. In C. Müller, F. Trosky, & M. Weber (Eds.), Ökonomik als Allgemeine Theorie Menschlichen Verhaltens: Grundlagen und Anwendungen, Schriften zu Ordnungsfragen der Witzschaft (Vol. 94, pp. 151–180). Stuttgart: Lucius & Lucius.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eger, T., & Scheufen, M. (2012b). The past and the future of copyright law: Technological change and beyond. In J. De Mot (Ed.), Liber Amicorum Boudewijn Bouckaert, forthcoming (pp. 37–65). Bruges: de Keuren.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eger, T., Scheufen, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2013). The determinants of open access publishing: Survey evidence from Germany. SSRN Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eger, T., Scheufen, M., & Meierrieks, D. (2014). The determinants of open access publishing: Survey evidence from countries in the Mediterranean open access network (medoanet). SSRN Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenberg, R. G. (1992). The flow of new doctorates’. Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2), 830–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elkin-Koren, N. (2006). Creative commons: A sceptical view of a worthy pursuit. In B. P. Hugenholtz & L. Guibault (Eds.), The future of the public domain (pp. 1–21). Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. A. (2009). Hoping for a to z while rewarding only a: Complex organizations and multiple goals. Organization Science, 20, 4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., & Reimer, J. (2009a). Open access and global participation in science. Science, 323, 1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., & Reimer, J. (2009b). Open access and global participation in science, supporting online material. Science, 323, 72–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eysenbach, G. (2006). Citation advantage of open access articles. PLoS Biology, 4(5), 692–698.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feather, J. (1980). The book trade in politics: The making of the copyright act of 1710. Publishing History, 8, 19–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feess, E., & Scheufen, M. (2013). Academic copyright in the publishing game: A contest perspective. SSRN Working Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feess, E., & Scheufen, M. (2014). Copyright versus open access for academic works: A non-strategic model on quality provision. Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finch, J. (2012). Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications. Report of the working group on expanding access to published research findings-the Finch group. http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Finch-Group-report-FINAL-VERSION.pdf.

  • Fiscor, M. (2002). The Law of Copyright and the Internet-the 1996 WIPO treaties, their interpretation and implementation. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Förster, A. (2008). Fair Use: Ein Systemvergleich der Schrankengeneralklausel des US-amerikanischen Copyright Act mit dem Schrankenkatalog des deutschen Urheberrechtsgesetzes. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, P. (1960). The principles of scientific research (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon Press (1st ed. 1949)

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B.S. (1992). Tertium datur: Pricing, regulating and intrinsic motivation. Kyklos, 45, 161–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2008). Academics appreciate awards. A new aspect of incentives in research. Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich, Working Paper No. 400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Neckermann, S. (2009). Awards: A view from economics. In G. Brennan & G. Eusepi (Eds.), The economics of ethics and the ethics of economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frost, G. E. (1967). The 1967 patent law debate-first-to-invent vs. first-to-file. Duke Law Journal, 1967(5), 923–942.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., & Villas-Boas, J. M. (2012). Price discrimination in the digital economy. In M. Peitz & J. Waldfogel (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the digital economy (pp. 254–272). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadd, E., Oppenheim, C., & Probets, S. (2003). Romeo studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements. Learned Publishing, 16(4), 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallini, N., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). Intellectual property: When is it the best incentive system. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 2, 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., & Shepherd, G. B. (1994). How are the mighty fallen: Rejected classic articles by leading economists. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 165–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes to science: A new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (1996). What is the premordial reference for the phrase ‘publish or perish’? The Scientist, 10(12), 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2003). The meaning of the impact factor. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 3(2), 363–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfield, E. (2005). The agony and the ecstasy—The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. In International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago, September 16, 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Gargouri, Y., Hajjem, C., Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., Carr, L., Brody, T., et al. (2010). Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One, 5(10), e13636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassaway, L. (2002). Copyright and moral rights. Information Outlook, 6(12), 40–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. (2007). The role of the three-step-test in the adaptation of copyright law to the information society. UNESCO E-Copyright Bulletin, 2007, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. (2010a). The influence (past and present) of the statute of anne in France. In L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, & P. Torremans (Eds.), Global copyright. Three hundred years since the statute of anne, from 1709 to cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C. (2010b). Promoting creativity through copyright limitations: Reflections on the concept of exclusivity in copyright law. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 12(3), 515–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, C., Griffiths, J., & Hilty, R. (2008). Declaration on a balanced interpretation of the “three-step test” in copyright law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 39, 707

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, P. E. (2000). Copyright history and the future: What’s culture got to do with it? Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 47, 209–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geller, P. E. (2010). A German approach to fair use: Test cases for trips criteria for copyright limitations. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 57, 555–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., & Johnston, R. (1974). The role of science in technological innovation. Research Policy, 3(3), 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, W. W. (1995). Lost science in the third world. Science in America, 273, 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gienas, K. (2008). Scientific works: Another dimension of copyright perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 3(12), Article 1, 801–803.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, J. C. (1990). A tale of two copyrights: Literary property in revolutionary France and America. Tulane Law Review, 64(5), 991–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, J. C. (2001). Toward supranational copyright law? The WTO panel decision and the “three-step” test for copyright exceptions. Revue Internationale du Droit d’Auteur (RIDA), 187(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godin, B. (2001). Defining r&d: Is research always systematic. Project on the History and Sociology of S&T Statistics. Paper No. 7. http://www.csiic.ca/PDF/Godin_7.pdf.

  • Goldenberg, J. (1998). What is the role of science in dcs? Science, 279, 1140–1141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, B. (1964). Frontières du droit et “lex mercatoria”. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, 9, 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, B. (1979). La lex mercatoria dans le contrats et l’arbitrage internationaux: Réalité et perspectives. Journal du Droit International, 106, 475–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldman, B. (1986). The applicable law: General principals of law - The lex mercatoria. In J. D. M. Lew (Ed.), Contemporary problems in international arbitration. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, P. (2001). International copyright: Principles, law and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodall, A. H. (2006). Should top universities be led by top researchers and are they? Journal of Documentation, 62, 388–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodall, A. H. (2009). Highly cited leaders and the performance of research universities. Research Policy, 38, 1079–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. J. (1982). Fair use as market failure: A structural and economic analysis of the betamax case and its predecessors. Columbia Law Review, 82(8), 1600–1657.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. J. (1989). An inquiry into the merits of copyright: The challenges of consistency, consent and encouragement theory. Stanford Law Review, 41, 1343–1469.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. J. (1992a). Asymmetric market failure and prisoner’s dilemma in intellectual property. University of Dayton Law Review, 17, 853–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. J. (1992b). Of harms and benefits: Torts, restitution and intellectual property. Journal of Legal Studies, 21, 449–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. J. (1998). Intellectual property as price discrimination: Implications for contract. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 73, 1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, W. J., & Bone, R. G. (1999). Copyright. Encyclopedia of law and economics, No. 1610. http://encyclo.findlaw.com/1610book.pdf.

  • Granstrand, O. (1999). The Economics and management of intellectual property. Towards intellectual capitalism. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grendler, P. F. (1975). The roman inquisition and the Venetian press. Journal of Modern History, 47(1), 48–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1992). The search for r&d spillovers. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, 29–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackl, F., & Pruckner, G. J. (2001). The economics of the kyoto protocol. In P. J. Welfens (Ed.), Internationalization of the economy and environmental policy options. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadfield, G. K. (1992). The economics of copyright: A historical perspective. Copyright Law Symposium, 38(1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagstrom, W. O. (1965). The scientific community. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J., Todd, P., & VanderKlouw, W. (2001). Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression discontinuity desgn. Econometrica, 69(1), 201–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajjem, C., Harnad, S., & Gingras, Y. (2005). Ten-year cross-disciplinary comparison of the growth of open access and how it increases research citation impact. IEEE Data Engineering Bulletin, 18(4), 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanauske, M., Bernius, S., & Dugall, B. (2009). Quantum game theory and open access publishing. Physica A, 382, 650–664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Handke, C. (2010). The economics of copyright and digitisation: A report on the literature and need for further research. Report for the Strategic Advisory Board for Intellectual Property Policy (SABIP), London, UK. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-economics-20105.pdf.

  • Handke, C., & Towse, R. (2007). The economics of copyright collective societies. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 38(8), 937–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, G. (2005). Zugang zu wissenschaftlicher information - Alternative urheberrechtliche ansätze. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil (GRUR International), 54(5), 378–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardy, T. (1999). Copyright and “new-use” technologies. Faculty Publications. Paper 187. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/187.

  • Hargreaves, I. (2011). Digital opportunity: A review of intellectual property and growth. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipreview-finalreport.pdf.

  • Harnad, S., Brody, T., Vallières, F., Carr, L., Hitchcock, S., Gingras, Y., et al. (2004). The access/impact problem and the green and gold roads to open access. Serials Review, 30(4), 310–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, F. A. v. (1973). Die anmaßung von wissen. Ordo, 26, 12–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heide, T. (2004). Making law and economics work for copyright. In R. M. Hilty & A. Peukert (Eds.), Interessenausgleich im urheberrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos

    Google Scholar 

  • Helberger, N. (2005). A2k: Access to knowledge-make it happen. INDICARE Monitor, 2(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfer, L. R., Alter, K. J., & Guerzovich, M. F. (2009). Islands of effective internationa adjudication: Constructing an intellectual property rule of law in the andean community. The American Journal of International Law, 103(1), 1–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R. (2006a). Das urheberrecht und der wissenschaftler. Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht. Internationaler Teil (GRUR International), 55(3), 179–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R. (2006b). Five lessons about copyright in the information society: Reaction of the scientific community to over-protection and what policy makers should learn. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 53(1), 103–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R. (2007). Copyright law and scientific research. In P. Torremans (Ed.), Copyright law. A handbook of contemporary research. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R., Krujatz, S., Bajon, B., Früh, A., Kur, A., Drexl, J., et al. (2008). European commission - Green paper: Copyright in the knowledge economy - Comments by the max planck institute for intellectual property, com-petition and tax law. Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition & Tax Law Research Paper Series No. 08-05, 08, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilty, R., & Peukert, A. (2004). Interessenausgleich im urheberrecht. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschfelder, M. (2008). Anforderungen an eine rechtliche Verankerung des Open Access Prinzips. Bologna: Verlag Alma Mater.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmström, B., & Migrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics & Organizations, 7(special issue), 24–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houghton, J., & Oppenheim, C. (2010). The economic implications of alternative publishing models. Prometheus, 28(1), 41–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz, B. (2001). Copyright and freedom of expression in Europe. In R. C. Dreyfuss, H. First, & D. L. Zimmermann (Eds.), Expanding the boundaries of intellectual property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hugenholtz, B. P., & Okediji, R. L. (2008). Conceiving an international instrument on limitations and exceptions to copyright. Final report. http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/copyright_20080506.pdf.

  • Hui, K.-L., & Png, I. P. L. (2002). On the supply of creative work: Evidence from the movies. American Economic Review, 92(2), 217–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. L. (1988). Science as a process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurt, R. M., & Schuchman, R. M. (1966). The economic rationale of copyright. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings), 56(1/2), 421–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G. W., & Lemieux, T. (2007). Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 13039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2007). Difference-in-differences estimation, lecture notes 10, summer 2007. http://www.nber.org/WNE/lect_10_diffindiffs.pdf.

  • Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 5–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. American Economic Review, 79(5), 957–970.

    Google Scholar 

  • JCR. (2011). Journal citation reports. http://thomsonreuters.com.

  • Jeon, D.-S., & Rochet, J.-C. (2010). The pricing of academic journals: A two-sided market perspective. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 2, 222–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jochum, U. (2009). “Open Access”. Zur Kritik einiger populärer Annahmen. Göttingen: Wallstein.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. P., & Waldman, M. (2005). The limits of indirect appropriability in markets for copiable goods. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), 19–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. R. (1985). The economics of copying. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 158–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, W. R. (2005). Creative pricing in markets for intellectual property. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, C., Leaffer, M., Jaszi, P. A., & Ochoa, T. (2010). Copyright law (8th ed.). Gurgaon: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, P. (1990). Price discrimination in top scientific journals. Applied Economics, 22(8), 1127–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce, P., & Merz, T. E. (1985). Price discrimination in academic journals. The Library Quarterly, 55(3), 273–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp, F., & Goldfriedrich, J. (1908). Geschichte des deutschen Buchhandels: Im Auftrage des Börsenvereins der deutschen Buchhändler. Leipzig: Bibliolife.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. W. (2007). The cost of journal publishing: A literature review and commentary. Learned Publishing, 20(2), 85–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koboldt, C. (1995). Intellectual property and optimal copyright protection. Journal of Cultural Economics, 19, 131–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kodrzycki, Y. K., & Yu, P. D. (2006). New approaches to ranking economics journals. B. E. Journal of Economics Analysis and Policy, 5(1), Article 24, 1–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konrad, K. (2009). Strategy and dynamics in contest. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ku, R. S. R. (2002). The creative destruction of copyright: Napster and the new economics of digital technology. University of Chicago Law Review, 69(1), 263–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlen, R. (2008). Erfolgreiches Scheitern - eine Götterdämmerung des Urheberrechts? Schriften zur Informationsgesellschaft (Vol. 48). Boizenburg: Verlag Werner Hülsbusch.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kur, A. (2009). Of oceans, islands, and inland water - How much room for exceptions and limitations under the three-step-test? Richmond Journal of Global Law and Business, 8, 287

    Google Scholar 

  • Laasko, M., Welling, P., Bukvova, H., Nyman, L., Björk, B.-C., & Hedlund, T. (2011). The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE, 6(6), 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laband, D. N., & Tollison, R. D. (2003). Dry holes in economic research. Kyklos, 56, 161–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakhani, K. R., & Wolf, R. C. (2005). Why hackers do what they do: Understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. A. Hissam, & K. R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 3–23). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (1989). An economic analysis of copyright law. Journal of Legal Studies, 18(2), 325–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2002). Indefinitely renewable copyright. Working Paper No. 154. University of Chicago John M. Olin Law and Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (2003). The Economic structure of intellectual property law. Massachusetts: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, S. (2001). Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact. Nature, 411, 521–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, S., & Giles, C. L. (2000). Accessibility of information on the web. Intelligence, 11(1), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. A., & Weiser, P. (2007). Should property or liability rules govern information. Texas Law Review, 85(4), 783–841.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2002). Some simple economics of open source. Journal of Industrial Economics, 50(2), 197–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2005). Economic perspectives on open source. In J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. A. Hissam, & K. R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on free and open source software (pp. 46–78). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leslie, L. R., & Oaxaca, R. L. (1993). Scientist and engineer supply and demand. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. IX, pp. 154–211). New York: Agathon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2001). The future of ideas: The fate of the commons in a connected world. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2004). Free culture: How big media uses technology and the law to lock down culture and control creativity. New York: Penguin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévêque, F., & Méniére, Y. (2004). The economics of patents and copyrights. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=642622.

  • Levin, S. G., & Stephan, P. E. (1991). Research productivity over the life cycle: Evidence for academic scientists’. American Economic Review, 81(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenberg, F. R. (1988). The private r&d investment response to federal design and technical competitors’. American Economic Review, 78(3), 550–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J. (1981). The impact of reprography on the copyright system. Ottawa: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J. (1983). Price discrimination by journal publishers: Its impact on copyright law and photocopying. European Intellectual Property Review, 6, 184–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J. (1985). Copying and indirect appropriability: Photocopying of journals. Journal of Political Economy, 93(5), 945–957.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J. (1986). Copyright law, photocopying, and price discrimination. Research in Law and Economics, 8, 181–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J. (2005). Economists’ topsy-turvy view of piracy. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J. (2014). Willfull blindness: The inefficient reward structure in academic research. Economic Inquiry, 52(4), 1267–1283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (2005). Seventeen famous economists weigh in on copyright: The role of theory, empirics, and network effects. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 18(2), 435–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J., & Palmer, J. C. (1984). Assessing the relative impacts of economics journals. Journal of Economic Literature, 22(1), 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebowitz, S. J., & Watt, R. (2006). How to best ensure remuneration for creators in the market for music? Copyright and its alternatives. Journal of Economic Surveys, 20(4), 513–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindenberg, S. (2001). Intrinsic motivation in a new light. Kyklos, 54(2), 317–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science. measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics, 15(3–4), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipszyc, D. (2010). Historical appearances and disappearances of formalities: From berne to national laws. In L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, & P. Torremans (Eds.), Global copyright. Three hundred years since the statute of anne, from 1709 to cyberspace. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litman, J. (2006). The economics of open access law publishing. Lewis & Clark Law Review, 10(4), 101–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1689). In T. Hollis (Ed.), The two treatises of civil government. New York: The Online Library of Liberty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lunney, G. S. (2008). Copyright’s price discrimination panacea. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 21(2), 387–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, F., von Walter, B., Hess, T., & Wigand, R. T. (2008). Open access publishing in science: Why it is highly appreciated but rarely used. Communications of the ACM, 52, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1995). Academic research underlying industrial innovations: Sources, characteristics, and financing. Review of Economics and Statistics, 77(1), 55–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maracke, C. (2010). Creative commons international. the international license porting project - origins, experiences, and challenges. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 4, 4–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marrella, F., & Yoo, C. S. (2007). Is open source software the new lex mercatoria? Virginia Journal of International Law, 47(4), 807–837.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, C. (2009). The pre-history and establishment of the wipo. The WIPO Journal: Analysis and Debate of Intellectual Property Issues, 1(1), 16–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, R. M. (1997). The scientific wealth of nations. Science, 275, 793–796.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. J. (2002). Journal pricing and mergers: A portfolio approach. American Economic Review, 92(1), 259–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. J. (2011). Online access and the scientific journal market: An economist’s perspective. Technical report, Draft Report for the National Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2004). A model of academic journal quality with applications to open-access journals. NET Institute Working Paper No. 04-18.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. M. (2005). Open access and academic journal quality. American Economic Review, 95(2), 453–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, M. J., & Snyder, C. (2011). Did online access to journals change the economics literature. SSRN Working Paper. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1746243.

  • McCain, M., & Bobick, J. E. (1981). Patterns of journal use in a department library: A citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(4), 257–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuigan, G. S., & Russel, R. D. (2008). The business of academic publishing: A strategic analysis of the academic journal publishing industry and its impact on the future of scholarly publishing. Electronic Journal of Academic and Special Librarianship, 9(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • McManis, C. (2009). A rhetorical approach to boldrine & levine: Against intellectual (property) extremism. Review of Law and Economics, 5(3), 1081–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meek, R., Raphael, D. D., & Stein, P. (Ed.). (1762). Lectures on Jurisprudence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Megheli, M., & Ramello, G. B. (2013). Open access, social norms and publication choice. European Journal of Law and Economics, 35(2), 149–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meho, L. I. (2007). The rise and rise of citation analysis. Physics World, 20(1), 32–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menell, P. S. (1999). Intellectual property: General theories. In Encyclopedia of law and economics, No. 1600. http://encyclo.findlaw.com/1600book.pdf.

  • Merton, R. K. (1948). The self-fulfilling prophecy. Antioch Review, 8, 193–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1957). Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 635–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Theoretical and Empirical investigations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzger, A. (2012). Transnational law for transnational communities. The emergence of a lex mercatoria (or lex informatica) for international creative communities. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 3, 361–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meurer, M. J. (2001). Copyright law and price discrimination. Cardozo Law Review, 23, 55–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mish, F. (Ed.) (1985). Webster’s new collegiate dictionary (9th ed.) New York: Merriam-Webster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitra-Kahn, B. H. (2011). Copyright, evidence and lobbynomics: The world after the UK’s Hargreaves review. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 8(2), 65–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mortimer, J. H. (2007). Price discrimination, copyright law, and technological innovation: Evidence from the introduction of dvds. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1307–1350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer, F., & Scheufen, M. (2011a). Die Ökonomische analyse geistiger eigentumsrechte. WiSt - Wirtschaftswissenschaftliches Studium, 40(3), 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer, F., & Scheufen, M. (2011b). The google book search settlement: A law and economics analysis. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 8(1), 7–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer, F., & Scheufen, M. (2013). Academic publishing and open access. In R. Towse & C. Handke (Eds.), Handbook of the digital creative economy (pp. 365–377). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer, F., & Watt, R. (2010). Copyright and open access for academic works. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 7(1), 45–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer, F., & Watt, R. (2012). Optimal pricing and quality of academic journals and the ambiguous welfare effects of forced open access: A two-sided model. TILEC Discussion Paper No. 2012-019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller-Langer, F., & Watt, R. (2013). Analysis of the impact of hybrid open access on journals and authors. New Zealand: University of Canterbury, Mimeo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R. (1962). The link between science and invention: The case of the transistor. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 549–583). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicita, A., & Ramello, G. B. (2007). Property, liability and market power: The antitrust side of copyright. Review of Law and Economics, 3, 767–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • NIH. (2005). Policy on enhancing public access to archived publications resulting from NIH-funded research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-05-022.html.

  • NIH. (2008). Revised policy on enhancing public access to archived publications resulting from NIH-funded research. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-033.html.

  • Noll, R. G. (1996). The economics of scholarly publications and the information superhighway. Working Paper 3, Brookings Institution Domestic Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, M., Oppenheim, C., & Rowland, F. (2008). The citation advantage of open-access articles. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(12), 1963–1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novos, I., & Waldman, M. (1984). The effects of increased copyright protection: An analytic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 92, 236–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • OAI. (2008). The open archives initiatives protocol for metadata harvesting. http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/openarchivesprotocol.html.

  • O’Hare, M. (1985). Copyright: When is monopoly efficient. Journal of Policy Analysis & Management, 4, 407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okediji, R. (2007). The limits of development strategies at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights. In D. J. Gervais (Ed.), Intellectual property, trade & development: Strategies to optimize economic development in a TRIPS plus era (pp. 367–373). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, J. (2002). Panel discussion. Copyright in the wto: The panel decision on the three-step test. Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts, 25, 119–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opderbeck, D. W. (2007). The penguin’s paradox: The political economy of international intellectual property and the paradox of open intellectual property models. Stanford Law and Policy Review, 18, 101–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M. (2013). Das paradox der leistungsmessung und die nachhaltigkeit der forschung. In Nachhaltigkeit in der Wissenschaft (Vol. 398, pp. 103–113). Berlin: Nova Acta Leopoldina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterloh, M., & Frey, B. S. (2000). Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms. Organization Science, 11, 538–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, D. (2004). Copies in seconds: How a lone inventor and an unknown company created the biggest communication breakthrough since gutenberg. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, T. G. (1990). Are patents and copyright morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13(3), 817–865.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pampel, H. (2013). Bundestag bringt zweitveröffentlichungsrecht auf den weg. http://wisspub.net/2013/06/28/bundestag-bringt-zweitveroffentlichungsrecht-auf-den-weg/.

  • Parks, R. P. (2001). The faustian grip of academic publishing. Journal of Economic Methodology, 9, 317–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters, D., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5, 187–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pethig, R. (1988). Copyright and copying costs: A new price theoretic approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 144, 462–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert, A. (2013a). Ein wissenschaftliches kommunikationssystem ohne verlage - zur rechtlichen implementierung von open access als goldstandard wissenschaftlichen publizierens. In M. Grünberger & S. Leible (Eds.), Die Kollision von Urheberrecht und Kommunikationsverhalten der Nutzer im Informationszeitalter (forthcoming) (pp. 145–172). Bayreuth: Universität Bayreuth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peukert, A. (2013b). The relationship between copyright and science: A matter of perspective. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law (JIPITEC), 4(2), 142–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, O. R., & Phillips, L. J. (2002). The market for academic journals. Applied Economics, 34(1), 39–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou, A. C. (1920). The Economics of welfare. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plant, A. (1934). The economic aspects of copyright in books. Economica, 1, 167–195.

    Google Scholar 

  • PLoS. (2001). Open letter to scientific publishers. http://web.archive.org/web/20110719181919/ http://www.plos.org/about/letter.php.

  • Png, I. P. L. (2006). Copyright: A plea for empirical research. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 3(2), 3–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Png, I. P. L., & Wang, Q.-H. (2009). Copyright law and the supply of creative work: Evidence from the movies. Working Paper, National University of Singapore. http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~ipng/research/copyrt.pdf.

  • Pollock, R. (2007). Optimal copyright over time: Technological change and the stock of works. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 4(2), 35–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (2005). Intellectual property: The law and economics approach. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 57–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramello, G. B. (2008). Access to vs. exclusion from knowledge: Intellectual property, efficiency and social justice. In A. Gosserie, A. Marciano, & A. Strowel (Eds.), Intellectual property and theories of justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramello, G. B. (2010). Copyright & endogenous market structure: A glimpse from the journal-publishing market. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 7(1), 7–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskind, L. J. (1998). Copyright. In P. Newman (Ed.), The New palgrave dictionary of economics and the law (Vol. I, pp. 478–482). London: Macmillan Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, E. (1999). The cathedral and the bazaar: Musings on linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary. Cambridge: O’Reilly,

    Google Scholar 

  • RCUK. (2012a). Note of the meeting held at polaris house on 13 November 2012 to discuss implementation & guidance questions relating to the revised RCUK open access policy. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/documents/documents/NoteRCUKOpenAccessWorkshop3-Nov-2012.pdf.

  • RCUK. (2012b). Research councils UK policy on access to research outputs. http://roarmap.eprints.org/671/1/RCUK%20_Policy_on_Access_to_Research_Outputs.pdf.

  • RegE. (2013). Entwurf eines gesetzes zur nutzung verwaister und vergriffener werke und einer weiteren Änderung des urheberrechtsgesetzes. http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/134/1713423.pdf.

  • Rehbinder, M. (2006). Urheberrecht (14th ed.). Munich: Beck Juristischer Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J. H. (2009). Intellectual property in the twenty-first century: Will the developing countries lead or follow? Houston Law Review, 46(4), 1115–1185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J. H., & Okediji, R. L. (2012). When copyright law and science collide: Empowering digitally integrated research methods on a global scale. Minnesota Law Review, 96, 1362–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J. H., & Uhlir, P. F. (2003). A contractually reconstructed research commons for scientific data in a highly protectionist intellectual property environment. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66, 315–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reuss, R., & Rieble, V. (Eds.). (2009). Autorschaft als Werkherrschaft in digitaler Zeit. Vittorio: Klostermann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricketson, S., & Ginsburg, J. C. (2006). International copyright and neighboring rights (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddoch, I. (2000). Bridging the quality gap. Nature, 408, 402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2010). A taste for science? PhD scientists’ academic orientation and self-selection into research career in industry. Research Policy, 39, 422–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1932). Imperfect competition and falling supply price. The Economic Journal, 42, 544–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of Political Economy, 94(5), 1002–1037.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 71–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, P. M. (1994). The origins of endogenous growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, S. (1981). The economics of superstars. American Economic Review, 71, 845–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D. I., & Ye, M.-H. (1997). Price discrimination and economics journals. Applied Economics, 29(12), 1611–1618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1974). Science, invention and economic growth. Economic Journal, 84(333), 90–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy, 19(2), 165–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkranz, T. (2011). Open Contents - Eine Untersuchung der Rechtsfragen beim Einsatz “freier” Urheberrechtsmodelle. Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. V. T. (2008). The scholarly use of journals offered through the health internetwork access to research initiative (hinari) and access to global online research in agriculture (agora) programs as suggested by the journal-citing patterns of authors in the least developed nations. http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-08082008-171628.

  • Ross, S. V. T., & Buckles, C. (2011). The health internetwork access to research initiative (hinari) in eligible American countries: Benefits, challenges and relationship to internet use. First Monday, 16(7).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M. A. (2006). Decoding the free/open source software puzzle: A survey of theoretical and empirical contributions. In J. Blitzer & P. Schröder (Eds.), The Economics of open source software development (pp. 15–56). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagan, C. (1980). Cosmos. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, E. (2000). The illustrated story of copyright. Washington: Thomas Dunne Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1954). The pure theory of public expenditure. Review of Economics and Statistics, 36(4), 387–389.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, F. M. (1982). Demand-pull and technological invention: Schmookler revisited. Journal of Industrial Economics, 30(3), 225–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheufen, M. (2011). What can scientists learn from the penguin? Open access and open source. Paper presented at the 10th Annual Congress of the Society of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, Bilbao, Spain. http://www.serci.org/congress/papers/Scheufen.pdf.

  • Schirmbacher, P. (2007). Open access - ein historischer abriss. In D. U. Kommission (Ed.), Open Access. Chancen und Herausforderungen - ein Handbuch. Bonn: Deutsche UNESCO Kommission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schonwetter, T. (2007). The three-step test within the copyright system. http://pcf4.dec.uwi.edu/viewpaper.php?id=58&print=1.

  • Scotchmer, S. (2011). Ideas and innovations: Which should be subsidized? Presented at the American Economic Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. & Maurer, S. M. (2006). A Primer for Nonlawyers on Intellectual Property. Innovation and Incentives (pp. 65–95). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCST. (2004). Scientific publications: Free for all? Select committee on science and technology. 10th Report. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf.

  • Seltzer, L. E. (1976). Exemptions and fair use in copyright: The “exclusive rights” tension in the new copyright act. Bulletin of the Copyright Society of the USA, 24, 215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M. (2004). Copyright, limitations and the three-step test: An analysis of the three-step test in international and ec copyright law. Netherlands: Kluwer Law International

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M. (2006). Towards a horizontal standard for limiting intellectual property rights? - wto panel reports shed light on the three-step-test in copyright law and related tests in patent and trademark law. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 37(4), 407–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senftleben, M. (2010). Bridging the differences between copyright’s legal traditions - the emerging ec fair use doctrine. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 57(3), 521–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1998). Versioning: The smart way to sell information. Harvard Business Review, 76(6), 106–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, S. (2010). Should copyright for academic works be abolished? Journal of Legal Analysis, 2(1), 301–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavell, S., & van Ypersele, T. (2002). Rewards versus intellectual property rights. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(2), 525–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shechtman, D. (1988). The icosahedral quasiperiodic phase. Physica Scripta, 49, 49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silva, F., & Ramello, G. B. (2000). Sound recording market: The ambiguous case of copyright and piracy. Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 415–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solow, R. M. (1956). A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(1), 65–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spindler, G. (2008). Anreize zum verschenken - Open source, open access, creative commons und wikipedia als phänomene neuer geschäfts- und informationsmodelle. erste annäherungen. In T. Eger, J. Bigus, C. Ott, & G. Wangenheim (Eds.), Internationalisierung des Rechts und seine ökonomische Analyse: Festschrift für Hans-Bernd Schäfer zum 65. Geburtstag (pp. 89–102). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Starbuck, W. H. (2005). How much better are the most prestigious journals? The statistics of academic publication. Organization Science, 16, 180–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E. (1996). The economics of science. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(3), 1199–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Audretsch, D. B. (Eds.). (2000). The economics of science and innovation (2 Vols.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Everhart, S. S. (1998). The changing rewards to science: The case of biotechnology. Small Business Economics, 10, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). How science is done; why science is done. In Striking the mother lode in science: The importance of age, place and time, chapter 2 (pp. 11–24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stigler, G. J. (1961). The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy, 69, 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. M. (2011). Introduction to econometrics (3th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson

    Google Scholar 

  • Stodden, V. (2009). Enabling reproducible research: Open licensing for scientific innovation. International Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 13(Winter 2009), 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber, P. (2004). Praising progress, preserving precision. SPARC Open Access Newsletter, No. 77, available at: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/09-02-04.htm.

  • Suber, P. (2006). Open access in the united states. In N. Jacobs (Ed.), Open access: Key strategic, technical and economic aspects. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber, P. (2012). Open access. London: The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suber, P., & Arunachalam, S. (2005). Open access to science in the developing world. http://www.firstauthor.org/Downloads/openaccess.pdf.

  • Sung, M., Villacisneros, C., Hsueh, S., & Yang, R. (2009). Copyright and the advent of xerox machines, Berkeley. http://blogs.ischool.berkeley.edu/i103su09/structure-projects-assignments/research-project/.

  • Swan, T. W. (1956). Economic growth and capital accumulation. Economic Record, 32(2), 334–361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tenopir, C., & King, D. W. (2000). Towards electronic journals: Realities for scientists, librarians and publishers. Washington: Special Libraries Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thatcher, S. G. (1978). On fair use and library photocopying. Scholarly Publishing, 9, 313–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietzel, M. (1995). Literaturökonomik. Tuebingen: J.C.B. Mohr.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towse, R. (2001). Creativity, incentive and reward: An economic analysis of copyright and culture in the information age. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Towse, R. (2006). Copyright and creativity: An application of cultural economics. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 3(2), 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towse, R., Handke, C., & Stepan, P. (2008). The economics of copyright law: A stocktake of the literature. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 5(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • TRIPS. (1994). Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights. http://www.wto.org/.

  • Turnbull, H. W. (Ed.) (1959). Letter to Robert Hooke (5 February 1676). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turnbull, S. (1998). Should ownership last forever? Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(3), 341–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulph, D., & Vulkan, N. (2000). Electronic commerce and competitive first-degree price discrimination. http://else.econ.ucl.ac.uk/papers/vulkan.pdf.

  • Varian, H. R. (2000). Buying, sharing and renting information goods. Journal of Industrial Organizations, 4, 473–488.

    Google Scholar 

  • Varian, H. R. (2005). Copying and copyright. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19(2), 121–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venske, A. (2000). Johannes gutenberg - Der erfinder des buchdrucks und seine zeit. Munich: Piper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viswanathan, S., & Anandalingam, G. (2005). Pricing strategies for information goods. Sadhana, Journal of the Indian Academy of Sciences, 30, 257–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. (2004). The past and the future of the economics of copyright. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 1(1), 151–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. (2005). Indirect appropriability 20 years on. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 2(1), 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. (2007). Patent and/or copyright for software: What has been done so far? Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 4(1), 3–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watt, R. (2010). Introduction: Copyright and the publishing of scientific works. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 7(1), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiebe, A. (2010). The economic perspective: Exhaustion in the digital age. In L. Bently, U. Suthersanen, & P. Torremans (Eds.), Global copyright. Three hundred years since the statute of anne, from 1709 to cyberspace (pp. 321–336). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday, 10(8).

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky, J. (2009). The stratified economics of open access. Economic Analysis and Policy, 39(1), 53–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wills, G. (1999). Saint augustine. New York: Viking Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, L. (1942). The academic man: A study in the sociology of a profession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO. (1999). Joint recommendation concerning provisions on the protection of well-known marks. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/development_iplaw/pdf/pub833.pdf.

  • WIPO. (2001). Joint recommendation concerning provisions on the protection of marks and other industrial property rights in signs, on the internet. http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/development_iplaw/pdf/pub845.pdf.

  • Woods, T. M. (2009). Working towards spontaneous copyright licensing: A simple solution for a complex problem. Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 11(4), 1141–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2005). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Boston: Cengage Learning Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • WTO. (2000). United States - Section 110(5) of the US copyright act. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/1234da.pdf.

  • WTO. (2009). China - Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Report of the panel. http://www.worldtradelaw.net/reports/wtopanelsfull/china-iprights(panel)(full).pdf.

  • Yuan, M. (2010). Digital technology, price discrimination, and copyright duration extension. Review of Economic Research on Copyright Issues, 7(1), 39–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann, C. (2009). Academic rankings with repec. Working Paper 2007-36R. Department of Economics,University of Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuckerman, H. (1992). The proliferation of prizes: Nobel complements and nobel surrogates in the reward system of science. Theoretical Medicine, 13, 217–231.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Ruhr University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany

    Marc Scheufen

Authors
  1. Marc Scheufen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Scheufen, M. (2015). Conclusions and Further Research. In: Copyright Versus Open Access. International Law and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12739-2_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation