Stevan Harnad's misconception 1

From: Velterop, Jan, Springer UK <Jan.Velterop_at_SPRINGER.COM>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:01:11 +0100

Misconception: The idea that publishers and the research establishment
are adversaries.

Stevan Harnad pits the interests of science publishers against the
interests of "research, researchers, universities, research
institutions, research funders, the vast research and development (R&D)
industry, and the tax-paying public that funds the research."

As if the researchers establishment lives in a parallel universe to the
one in which science publishers live. A universe which is not 'tainted'
by anything that might appear to have anything to do with economics or
business.

Perspicacious he doesn't seem to be.

Although...he makes the point that "...research publishing [...] is a
service [...]. It will have to adapt to what is best for research, and
not vice versa." Quite right. Precisely *because* publishing is a
service, the interests of the research establishment *are* the interests
of publishers. Publishing is so intertwined with academia that it is
part of the research establishment. Access to, and sustainability of,
formal publication channels (a.k.a. journals) are two lattices of the
same clear crystal (OA publishing should be called 'diamond' instead of
'gold').

Jan Velterop


> -----Original Message-----
> From: SPARC Open Access Forum [mailto:SPARC-OAForum_at_arl.org]
> On Behalf Of Stevan Harnad
> Sent: 28 February 2007 04:09
> To: SPARC Open Access Forum
> Subject: [SOAF] Reply to Jan Velterop, and a Challenge to
> "OA" Publishers Who Oppose Mandating OA via Self-Archiving
>
> ** Cross-Posted **
>
> The online age has given birth to a very profound conflict of
> interest between what is best for (1) the research journal
> publishing industry, on the one hand, and, on the other hand,
> what is best for (2) research, researchers, universities,
> research institutions, research funders, the vast research
> and development (R&D) industry, and the tax-paying public
> that funds the research.
>
> It is no one's fault that this conflict of interest has
> emerged. It was a consequence of the revolutionary new power
> and potential for research that was opened up by the Web era.
> What is at stake can also be put in very concrete terms:
>
> (1) hypothetical risk of future losses in publisher revenue
> versus
> (2) actual daily losses in research usage and impact
>
> The way in which this conflict of interest will need to be
> resolved is also quite evident: The research publishing
> industry is a service industry. It will have to adapt to what
> is best for research, and not vice versa. And what is best
> for research, researchers, universities, research
> institutions, research funders, the R&D industry and the
> tax-paying public in the online age is: Open Access (free
> online access).
>
> The research publishing industry lobby of course does not
> quite see it this way. It is understandable that their first
> commitment is to their own business interests, hence to what
> is best for their bottom lines, rather than to something
> else, such as Open Access, and what is best for research and
> researchers.
>
Received on Wed Feb 28 2007 - 19:14:45 GMT