On Thu, 16 Aug 2001, Arthur Smith wrote [in part]: [jt (1d)]> - Academic freedom: Censorship based on cost rather than [jt]> quality can't be justified.
[as]> (1d) I'm afraid I don't understand - can you describe a scenario [as]> where cost is involved in censorship somehow? My proposed four main reasons why the primary research literature should be freed were, in brief: (1a) Information gap; (1b) Library crisis; (1c) Public property; and, (1d) Academic freedom. Re (1d): please bear in mind that a definition of the verb "censor" is "make deletions or changes in". I can think of a number of researcher-side (and also of end-user-side) examples of cost barriers to the dissemination of the (high-quality) primary research literature. Here's one example of such a scenario, within the context of the "author-give-away" literature. That is, the author doesn't want to make a profit. The author simply wants to give a publication away. Scenario: The top brand-name journal in the field (one that has, as it's explicitly-stated primary role, the advancement of a particular research discipline), has peer-reviewed a preprint and finds it acceptable for publication as it is. But, the journal doesn't have (for reasons of cost/revenue) an electronic version that's freely available online. And (again, for reasons of cost/revenue) this same journal won't accept the preprint for publication if it's already been self-archived by the author. Also (for the same cost/revenue reasons), it won't permit post-publication self-archiving in any open archive. And, when asked to do so, it refuses to modify it's current "licence to publish" agreement, one which forbids post-publication self-archiving by the author. And: the author's own peers and host institution regard anything not published in this particular top brand-name journal as second-rate in quality (even if, in the view of that same journal's own peer-reviewers, the preprint is actually first-rate). What should the author do, in order to avoid this (cost/revenue-based) dissemination barrier? Some possible options: (i) Thank the journal for peer-reviewing the preprint, and simply self-archive it in an open archive, together with a comment that it was considered to be acceptable for publication by the brand-name journal (how to validate such a claim?). (ii) Self-archive the preprint, but not inform the brand-name journal (requires deception). (iii) Withdraw the submitted preprint, and re-submit it to a lower-impact journal that either has a version that's freely-available online, or permits open self-archiving of preprints and/or postprints. The third alternative (which is the one that I'd personally prefer) results, I'll argue, in a form of censorship. First, the article has been deleted from (because it didn't enter into) the "top-quality" brand of primary research literature, for reasons based on cost/revenue, not quality. Second, it's dissemination has been significantly delayed, again simply for reasons of cost/revenue, not quality. Perhaps these particular consequences won't be regarded as serious enough to justify use of the word "censorship"? Is there another word that might be more appropriate? "Blockage"? "Interference"? > > 2. It can be done: > > > That's debatable (as we've been doing here for some time). But even so, > because something can be done, is that a reason it should be? I thought > you were listing problems to be solved, not solutions in search of > problems... Please note that my "should" reasons preceded my "can" reasons. Problems that should be solved, and can be solved (I'll argue) merit inclusion in an "A-level" category, distinct from those problems that: B) should be solved, but can't, and, C) can be solved, but shouldn't. Jim Till University of Toronto
