Everybody with a reasonable education and interest is a researcher from time to
time; for some it's a job; some are affiliated to an institution.
You may well be right that public access is not enough reason to induce
publishing researchers to bother to make their research publications OA. That,
sadly, seems to be the case. That also seems to be the case for the 'OA citation
advantage', for the 'taxpayer has the right to access' argument, for the 'we're
paying twice for research' argument, etcetera.Â
These arguments should translate into a general ethical argument. When
scientific or scholarly research results obtained with public resources are
worthy of being published (and a lot more is worthy of being published than is
being published now â think negative results), they belong to the
'noösphere',
the knowledge sphere for all humanity to take in, when so desired.Â
It should â and in my judgment it will â be socially and professionally
unacceptable for any researcher who wishes to be taken seriously to keep his or
her published results behind barriers.Â
Jan Velterop
On 29 Mar 2012, at 02:47, Stevan Harnad wrote:
No flames, Peter. I said researcher -- not institutionally
affiliated researcher.
Researchers are the ones most researcher is written for: to be used,
applied and built upon.
And I also said that health-related research was one of the special
exceptions
where public access is indeed desired and needed.Â
But health-related research is not representative of most scientific and
scholarlyÂ
research.Â
Hence it is not reason enough  to induce researchers bother to make theirÂ
research OA (or their institution bother to mandate it).
Maximizing research access for those intended to use and build upon is.
(And no one said anyone was a second class citizen.)
Peace.
On 2012-03-28, at 4:18 PM, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Stevan Harnad
<har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
Some comments on Richard Poynder's interview of
Mike Rossner in "Open & Shut"
http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2012/03/rups-mike-rossner-doing-whats-right.html
Practically speaking, public access (i.e., free
online access to research,
for everyone) includes researcher access (free
online access to research
for researchers).
Moreover, free online access to research, for everyone,
includes both public
access and researcher access.
I do not wish to start a flame war on this list, but to distinguish
"public" and researcher" is totally unacceptable to me. I have
worked as a scientist for 15 years outside academia and I am not a
second class citizen. There are many outside academia who are every
bit as good scientists as those inside - they pay the taxes which
pay research and pay library subscriptions.
Â
There are people who would be dead if they could not have read the
medical literature - fortuitously because they happened to be
employed by a university.
P.
--
Peter Murray-Rust
Reader in Molecular Informatics
Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry
University of Cambridge
CB2 1EW, UK
+44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
[ Part 2: "Attached Text" ]
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
