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

RE: Changing the game

I have the feeling I was misunderstood here. What I meant is that research
funded by private funds (I exclude here foundations) could be published
wherever these private funds want. However, if these publications are to pass
research muster, they still need to be vetted through peer review and they must
appear in legitimate scientific journals. What I was thinking about is that if a
private corporation funds some research, they could insist to have it published
in a toll-gated journal held by a private company (an Elsevier journal, for
example). Of course, if a company like Elsevier should be found not doing its
job correctly with regard to results manipulation, etc..., that has to be dealt
with too and a regulatory approach is fine with me. What Tony is referring to, I
suspect, is some form of corporate vanity publishing disguised as scientific
publishing. This is an important issue, and the practise must be condemned, but
it is not the point I was trying to make.

As for sounding like a neocon... well, what can I say :-) This said, the Linux
world with which I am quite familiar  (and supportive) has been accused of
being both communistic and ultra-liberal (in the economic sense of liberal). Oh

Jean-Claude Guedon

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Tony McSean
Sent: Tue 10/6/2009 10:21 AM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Changing the game

I beg to differ with Dr Guedon when he says, "Results from private or
corporation money: let each private source decide how it wants to see these
results disseminated", which is rather more neocon in tone than many of his
postings.  Than the rest of this one, indeed.

There are important exceptions to this which shade over from scholarly
communication and into legitimate regulatory, notably in the area of
pharma-sponsored drug trials.  The  many ways these can be, and are, suppressed
and manipulated have important implications for public health, and to argue this
case I can do no better than provide a link to Ben Goldacre's column in the
Guardian last Saturday:


Tony McSean
+41 22 791 3539

----- End forwarded message -----