Re: Stevan Harnad's misconception 1

From: Stevan Harnad <harnad_at_ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 19:11:03 +0000

(1) I am not sure why Jan posted a long series of separate postings
instead of replying in one posting to my one posting.

(2) "Misconception 1" below seems to be all about idoelogy, and begs
the concrete question: Is Jan/Springer for or against OA
self-archiving mandates, and if not, how can he say he is for OA?

Stevan Harnad

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Velterop, Jan, Springer UK wrote:

> 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 - 19:20:43 GMT