P.S. Ari Belenkey, why are you posting this on the Finch/Willets
thread? You are not posting about Finch Willets: You are airing
10-year old arguments against OA!
You should be applauding Finch/Willets, since, if heeded, they
will have set OA back by yet another decade...
On 2012-07-31, at 1:02
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
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
I am flattered that Dr. Watkinson feels I had special influence on Ian
Gibson and his Select Committee. I wish I had had. But alas the truth
is as I have already written: I was not one of the 23 witnesses invited
to give oral evidence (several publishers were). Ian's parliamentary
assistant Sarah
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 7:21 AM, Kiley, Robert [Wellcome Trust] wrote:
My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan’s. In short,
I see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure – I sat on
the Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.
**· **Finch
My reading of the RCUK policy is somewhat different to Stevan's. In short, I
see clear parallels between what Finch recommended (disclosure - I sat on the
Finch Working Group) and the RCUK policy.
Specifically:
· Finch recommended gold OA and flexible funding arrangements to cover
