[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: US University OA Resolutions Omit Most ImportantComponent

People have been educated to death about what's good for them health wise;
the public knows all this, they (we) just won't act on it.  So the
question is, do we legislate behavior?  We all know that is the issue now.  
And who gets legislated/punished?  The companies that make the "bad"
products (Mcdonalds, etc.) or the people that practice the "bad" behaviors
(through higher insurance rates, etc.).  OA is hardly "brand new," and
lord knows PLOS and others have worked the press very well indeed.  
Perhaps (shock!) researchers aren't as generous minded as OA/IR proponents
would like to think (remember all that fighting over who discovered the
AIDS virus?)?  Or perhaps, indeed, busy researchers are just too busy
doing their jobs (and the problem is...?)  What OA and IR evangelists seem
increasingly eager to do is legislate when recruiting volunteers doesn't
work.  They are like the Republicans ranting about family values--if they
can't change peoples hearts, they'll by God force! them to follow the
Moral Law as they see it.

Researchers "give" our journal their papers--via an online ms. submission
system that we pay a monthly fee for (and that we paid a hefty fee and
lots of staff time to start up); that we then review (more staff time, on
the part of our editor and other staff); that we generate correspondence
for; substantively edit if accepted, etc. etc. etc.  The reason the author
"gives" it to us is that he/she wants the imprimature of our journal's
name and reputation to enhance his or her reputation.  That's the fact.  
Otherwise, OA/IR advocates would promote simply bypassing the journal
process altogether and recommend posting mss. on online repositories and
forget we money-grubbing journals altogether.


Lisa Dittrich
Managing Editor
Academic Medicine
2450 N Street NW
Washington,D.C. 20037
lrdittrich@aamc.org (e-mail)
202-828-0590 (phone)
202-828-4798 (fax)
Academic Medicine's Web site: www.academicmedicine.org

>>> mefunk@mail.med.cornell.edu 05/10/05 10:35 PM >>>

Well, so much for the need to educate anybody about what is good for them:
about a proper diet, exercise, drinking in moderation, and the like. If
they knew what was good for them, they'd already do it, right? This
philosophy alone will save millions in health education.  (Although I do
have worries about the health of the nation...)  Seriously, when brand new
things appear, people need to be educated about them. Busy researchers are
busy doing research. They have submitted papers the same way for years or
decades. They don't think about it any more. OA and IRs are a new way, and
most researchers are still unaware of them.

As far as authors getting peer-review, editing, etc., for free: Journal
publishers have been getting manuscripts free from authors for centuries.

Mark Funk
Head, Collection Development
Weill Cornell Medical Library
1300 York Avenue
New York, NY 10021

At 12:01 AM -0400 5/10/05, Lisa Dittrich wrote:
>Someone finally said it!
>I love all the rhetoric about faculty not "knowing what's good for them"
>and how they simply have to be "educated" about the virtues of OA and IRs. 
>Baloney.  If it was of value to them, they'd know, and they'd do.
>Publishers, can we please stop kowtowing? Please?  If an author doesn't
>want to sign a copyright form, doesn't want to pay subscription fees,
>etc., then he/she can and should "publish" online in an OA journal or in
>and IR or on a blog.  Don't ask me for peer-review, editing, etc., not to
>mention the imprimatur of my journal's name (earned over decades) FOR