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

RE: Fwd: US University OA Resolutions Omit Most ImportantComponent

A comment to David C Prosser:

I would say that You are absolutely wrong. We don't do the things you say
we do. I don't think you, a director at SPARC or I, a librarian from
Sweden has that power. NIH could be included in "we", that's power,
bureaucratic power. As You know bureaucrats are not liked by anyone.

If it is not we that force the researcher, who is?

Researchers are part of a research community with a very special and nobel
agenda and they act civilized.

They don't like to be forced to anything. That is a threat and "we" have
no right to force them to anything.

They are not researchers because we force them to.
They don't write because we force them to.
They don't publish because we force them to

As You remember Mr Stalin tried to force a whole population, with a 99%
consent in elections, to joyfully accept building a Socialist Paradise.
The "we" that know best had their ways to keep all swinging happily the
red flags. .

Maybe you are right, maybe it's not up to the researcher to deceide.

Your way to use the word force reminds me of one Your countries best
authors, George Orwell. Peace is war or more up to date, aggresive wars
are fights for peace and democracy.

As we sang in the sixties: "when will they ever learn"

Jan Szczepanski
Frste bibliotekarie
Goteborgs universitetsbibliotek
Box 222
SE 405 30 Goteborg, SWEDEN
Tel: +46 31 773 1164 Fax: +46 31 163797
E-mail: Jan.Szczepanski@ub.gu.se

At 06:56 2005-05-13, you wrote:
In these discussions about authors doing, or being forced to do, what is
'good for them' we appear to forget that we already force authors to do
'what is good for them'.  For example:

In return for providing research grants we force researchers to deposit
gene sequences, protein sequences, etc.  It is not to the benefit of the
individual researcher to deposit, they don't volunteer, but we recognise
the value of it being done and so insist on it. In doing so we create
databases that are of benefit to all researchers.

In return for providing research grants we force researchers to write and
file end-of-project reports.  Again, researchers don't volunteer to write
these reports, but we recognise the value of having a reporting step and
insist on it.

In return for providing (significant) research grants the NIH is now
insisting on strategies to make data available.  The researchers are not
queuing-up to volunteer, but NIH sees it as important and so forces
researchers to 'do the right thing'.

Open access advocates would argue that in return for research grants
funding agencies have the right to 'force' researchers to make a copy of
their research papers available through open access.  The fact that some
may not volunteer to do this no more significant than the fact the some do
not volunteer to deposit sequences, write reports, or publicly archive
their data.  If the funders of research believe it is important then they
have a right to 'force' researchers to do something that benefits research
by widening access and dissemination of the research they have paid for.

David C Prosser PhD
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk