[GOAL] Re: RCUK & EC Did Not Follow Finch/Willets

[brentier at ulg.ac.be]

I wouldn't want to let Stevan look like he stands alone here.

I am terrified by such statements as those made here by Mr. Belenkiy (whom, by the way, I do not know). 

These statements are not only peremptory, but they take us back 15 years in the dark ages of the nascent OA era.

I admire Stevan for responding to such uninformed arrogance. It is a pity that this person has not even tried to get some reliable information prior to swarm into this forum, wasting everybody's time. 

Bernard Rentier
Chair, EOS
http://www.openscholarship.org


Le 31 juil. 2012 à 11:43, Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk> a écrit :

> 
> On 2012-07-30, Ari Belenkiy wrote in LIBLICENSE:
> 
>> Stevan Harnad,
>> 
>> I failed to hear this time the key word "taxpayer" that permeated your
>> earlier writings.
> 
> Here's the word: 
> 
> Research is funded by the *tax-payer* so that it can be used, applied and 
> built upon, toward progress in further research and applications, to the 
> benefit of the *tax-payer*.
> 
> Access-denial denies *tax-payers* the full usage, progress, applications and
> benefits from the research they funded.
> 
> Research usage, applications, progress and benefits do not come from
> restricting access to users in the country in which the research was 
> funded and conducted. (Not even subscription-access does that!)
> 
> Research is global, and the intended users of research are worldwide.
> 
>> Thus, the taxpayer's status is unimportant? You argued for the
>> well-being of an "ideal" taxpayer - is this a researcher?
> 
> Not at all, as you see.
> 
>> I cannot see how the modern system prevents a serious researcher from
>> an immediate intake in other's research. I did not hear of any
>> independent researcher in Medicine who works inside of any institution
>> which cannot allow itself to buy all necessary journals.
> 
> Look again.
> 
>> And the third response on the list convinced me again that it is
>> Medicine that matters most for the OA advocates.
> 
> I cannot follow. OA is for all research, in all disciplines. What research
> fails to benefit from being accessible to all its intended users, rather
> than just those that can afford to subscribe? 
> 
> (Research is not being funded and conducted by the tax-payer in order 
> to generate access-toll revenue  for the publisher, let alone the researcher. 
> Refereed research  journal publication is not trade publication. It is written 
> for research uptake and impact, not for royalty income.)
> 
>> Perhaps this is lobbying for the people with serious medical problems.
>> Though then your position is quite understandable, you still a
>> lobbyist, like any other group with particular interests.
> 
> I (and most other OA advocates) are "lobbying" for research progress, 
> in all disciplines, worldwide.
> 
> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, LIBLICENSE <liblicense at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Stevan Harnad <harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
>>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:35:40 -0400
>>> 
>>>> From: Ari Belenkiy <ari.belenkiy at gmail.com>
>>>> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:50:34 -0700
>>>> 
>>>> Despite his valuable personal recollections, Steven Harnad  so far
>>>> failed to answer  two my questions:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Why the EU research must be immediately open for the non-EU
>>>> researchers (who are not, in particularly, EU-taxpayers)?
>>> 
>>> Because research is done and reported in order to be used, applied
>>> and built upon by other researchers -- not just those who can
>>> subscribe to the journal in which it appeared, or who live in the same
>>> country as the researcher.
>>> 
>>>> 2. Why the EU taxpayers, who contribute different amounts in tax, must
>>>> have equal opportunities to access the results of the EU research?
>>> 
>>> The primary purpose of providing OA is so that the primary intended
>>> users of the research (researchers worldwide) can use, apply and
>>> build upon it. Access by the interested public is a secondary bonus.
>>> 
>>>> [Of course, EU could be substituted here for Britain or the US or
>>>> Russia or China or etc.]
>>> 
>>> If you want your research findings to be confidential and
>>> restricted, you don't publish them at all.
>>> 
>>> OA is for research published in peer-reviewed journals, for all
>>> potential users. The journal price-tag is an access-restrictor.
>>> 
>>> Stevan Harnad
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GOAL mailing list
> GOAL at eprints.org
> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal