> I would put it differently. The taxpayers should be allowed access, but most > of them would not be interested. > But with toll access, taxpayers actually pay for the research twice. Once > when it is done, and once again when > other researchers, funded by them as well, read it. So: > > Taxpayers paid for the research. They should not pay twice.
Are tax-payers paying twice when universities pay to buy for their users books based on tax-payer funded scholarly and scientific research? If not, then tax-payers are not "paying twice" when universities pay to buy journal subscriptions for their users either. (Whereas if so, then Open Access is up against a far, far bigger obstacle than journal subscription access barriers: They are up against the entire book industry, including both its publishers and its authors. And US research funder mandates cannot and will not change that.) Please let's stick to the fair, real, realistic and unassailable rationale for mandating open access: Research is funded (by the tax payer) and conducted and published (by the researcher) so that its findings can be accessed, used and built upon by its primary intended users (researchers) for the benefit of the tax-payer and research progress. A condition of being funded for research with tax-payer money should be that it is mandatory to make the research journal articles reporting the research accessible to all of its intended users, regardless of whether their institutions can afford subscription access. No need for any double-talk about double-payment. It doesn't help. It just invites misunderstanding and criticism of what, when properly put, is a fair, real, realistic and unassailable rationale for mandating open access. Stevan Harnad
