ethics re posting info from scientific studies online

[phishphood]

So I'm just curious on what the ethics/legalities are regarding posting information/stats/conclusions from published papers on online public media such as forums, or even personal websites provided you give proper citation etc. I don't have an issue with anything from say...PLoSone, but other non-publicly accessible sources such as PubMed and other pay-for-subscription journals (viewed through an institution's credentials) are a grey area for me. Discussing them/presenting on them to a room full of peers that have the same access I do is one thing, but I'm a little fuzzy on the whole general public thing. Any insight would be great, thanks guys.

 

[GreshamH]

IMO there is nothing wrong posting citations from any journal. Vrossing the line would be posting the paper itself *if* it isnt public domain.

 

[phishphood]

by citations you mean excerpts/summaries of parts of it?

 

[GreshamH]

Direct quotes

 

[Gomer]

Direct quotes is fine. Abstracts are fine. Chunk content and data sets are probably not fine. Legally, probably only the abstract is fine.
If you want to be certain, email the publisher. IME, they are pretty fast to respond.

 

[sfsuphysics]

+1 or 2 to what has already been said.

My ethics is, who cares, publish it, information should be free...

However legalities can often trump my ethics

I know websites/forums that usually post entire articles, are skirting a fine line as well (and by skirting they're doing illegal things ), it's simply one of those matters where news agencies don't go after that sort of thing because the effort is most likely not worth the result.

Also not sure if a fair use doctrine would be applicable here.

 

[kvosstra]

This is copyright law, fair use applies. Cite portions of the document and cite it. That is generally fine. You should use discretion in what is fair use...i.e. dont post the entire document, but a paragraph, or conclusion from the document are certainly allowed.

 

[treylane]

The info in these journals isn't "secret" in any way, they're just not distributed to the general public. So +1 for Kyle's conclusion and copyright permitting fair use.

 

[rygh]

Good wiki on that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
But I am not going to publish the text here.

Plus, I doubt BAR has any resources to fight a copyright lawsuit.

 

[GreshamH]

Good wiki on that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
But I am not going to publish the text here.

Plus, I doubt BAR has any resources to fight a copyright lawsuit.

that is super odd given WIKI is all Fair Use and can be freely used, even their images.

BAR wouldn't have to fight it. IN most cases that I have seen they ask for removal well prior to even threatening lawsuit.

I have no issue posting citiations from any paper. It's perfectly legal adn done thousands times every day on the net. Just cite the source.

 

[Gomer]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

 

[rygh]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

 

[GreshamH]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

I was taught to cite sources in the 4th grade. Stuck with me ever since.

 

[Thales]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

Completely untrue and the kind of 'slur' that makes people more combative than helpful.

 

[Gomer]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

Completely untrue and the kind of 'slur' that makes people more combative than helpful.

Untrue? Cite your source

 

[Thales]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

Completely untrue and the kind of 'slur' that makes people more combative than helpful.

Untrue? Cite your source

http://www.reefsmagazine.com/showthread.php?t=77954

 

[rygh]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

Completely untrue and the kind of 'slur' that makes people more combative than helpful.

Yes, it was intended as a joke. Hence the smiley-thingy.
Thanks Gomer!

 

[GreshamH]

I've learned usually the first thing out of some ones mouth, or what they post, has a grain of truth in their eyes which lends me not to trust smilies. Adding a smiley doesn't change anything really.

 

[Thales]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

Completely untrue and the kind of 'slur' that makes people more combative than helpful.

Yes, it was intended as a joke. Hence the smiley-thingy.

Yeah I know, but its not really funny for the same reason that jokes about gays converting children aren't funny - even with a smiley.

 

[yardartist]

Just cite the source.

Best practice if nothing else.

Plus, regardless of copyright, the skeptics will not believe you without citations.
J)

Completely untrue and the kind of 'slur' that makes people more combative than helpful.

Really? I thought he finally got it right. I am all confused about the skeptic thing. Citations good?