Re: PostGutenberg Copyrights and Wrongs for Give-Away Research

From: Albert Henderson <chessNIC_at_COMPUSERVE.COM>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:20:39 -0400

on Thu, 28 Jun 2001 Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_COGPRINTS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
 
> Unfortunately, Albert Henderson's suggestions are so repetitive and
> predictable that they can be responded to by number. These responses
> are themselves equally predictable (and a fortiori, repetitive), but
> they differ from the points to which they are responses in that they
> take the point into account, and advance the analysis one step further,
> whereas alas Albert simply takes a step back every time, and simply
> reiterates, without processing or reflecting on the substantive
> responses he has received repeatedly -- indeed, without giving any sign
> of their having entered his sensorium at all.
>
> Two algorithms will generate just about every point Albert keeps
> making in this Forum (and the points both keep generating are just
> plain incorrect):
>
> (1) The serials crisis is an artifact of (conspiratorial)
> underfunding of libraries, and would be solved if this underfunding
> were terminated. [Fallacy: No conspiracy; no underfunding; no funds
> available or deliberately withheld.]

        Don't take my word for the underfunding of libraries.
        There is considerable literature documenting the underfunding
        of libraries after 1970: The Fry-White study (1975), National
        Enquiry on Scholarly Communication (1979); Richard Talbot (1984),
        ARL Serials Prices Project (1989); A M Cummings et al (1992);
        Okerson & Stubbs (1992) -- just to cite a few studies not
        including my own. [I will gladly provide full cites to anyone
        wishing for a depressing afternoon.]

        My own comparison of declining library spending with
        increased profitability -- well documented statistically
        -- suggests funds have been deliberately withheld. [I will
        gladly share my sources -- all published.]

        Who said "conspiracy?" Please give us your source. If
        I were to choose a word, it would be "culture." Ironically,
        the "culture" of university administrators places a higher
        value on hoarding financial assets than it does on library
        collections. Here is a "culture," like the management
        culture pre-workers' compensation and fire safety laws, that
        relies on workers to take care of themselves. University
        managers are failing to meet their obligation to excellence
        in research and education.
        

(2) Nothing relevant has changed since the Gutenberg [print on-paper
dissemination] Era. [Fallacy: everything has changed; authors can now
disseminate their REFEREED {sic} research for free for all, online, by
self-archiving {sic}]

        Technology gave us another new tool a decade ago. No revolution
        need follow. The essentials of copyright and the social
        construction of science have not toppled. Nor will they.

[snip]

Have a nice weekend.

Albert Henderson
Former Editor, PUBLISHING RESEARCH QUARTERLY 1994-2000
<70244.1532_at_compuserve.com>

.
.
.
Received on Wed Jan 03 2001 - 19:17:43 GMT