Re: Research Reports as Advertisements: An Allegory

From: Peter Banks <pbanks_at_BANKSPUB.COM>
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 17:08:45 -0500

"When research funders propose, and researchers petition, to mandate OA
self-archiving -- and publishers oppose it -- I think it's more than
reasonable to call that opposition opposition."

Petitions are fine and good. More important, though, is actual behavior.
About 43,000 people have signed UNICEF's petition to Protect Every Child's
Right To Survival. That sounds impressive, until one recognizes that 29,000
children die EVERY DAY from preventable causes like malaria, measles and
diarrhea. It's quite easy to sign a petition dictating what someone else or
the government should do, but not as easy to actually do something oneself.

In fact, researchers already can do something themselves. They do not need
mandates--they can deposit papers right now under many copyright agreements.
The fact that they largely have not indicates that most view it as a
distraction from the conduct of research or a chance to post raw unedited
and potentially error-containing papers that reflect poorly on their
reputation and scholarship.

I fail to see the logic of mandating that researchers do what, by their own
behavior, they have said overwhelmingly they do not value. I suppose
"researchers," you apparently mean a select group of petition-signers, not
practicing researchers at large.


Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
10332 Main Street #158
Fairfax, VA 22030
(703) 591-6544
CELL (703) 254-8862
FAX (703) 383-0765
pbanks_at_bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/


On 3/3/07 9:30 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:

> When research funders propose, and researchers petition, to mandate OA
> self-archiving -- and publishers oppose it -- I think it's more than
> reasonable to call that opposition opposition.
Received on Sat Mar 03 2007 - 22:38:20 GMT