On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Stevan Harnad wrote: [sh]> To summarize (again): Blocking access to patentable findings so that [sh]> tolls can be derived from the sale of potential products derived [sh]> from them makes sense; blocking access to the publication of [sh]> peer-reviewed, non-patentable findings in order to collect access [sh]> tolls makes zero sense.
I agree. [sh]> If you would not want to submit it to a peer-reviewed journal (or [sh]> not yet), then you would not want to self-archive it either. Again, I agree. [sh]> If research is being held back from publication waiting for a [sh]> patent, then that is not the research we are concerned about here. [sh]> The research we are concerned about here is seeking publication in a [sh]> peer-reviewed journal -- seeking to maximize access to itself so as [sh]> to maximize its research impact. But, in the biotechnology area, there are authors who want to do both: 1) by filing for patent protection, protect intellectual property that may lead directly to an "invention", AND, then, 2) to publish their research results in a high-impact, widely-accessible journal. These are sequential, but not mutually-exclusive, objectives. I know that Stevan prefers to focus the attention of participants in this Forum mainly on the self-archiving strategy, but my own view is that the Forum will be more useful if it addresses ALL barriers, temporary or permanent, to rapid open access to the peer-reviewed research results. The time required to seek (legitimate) protection of intellectual property is one such (temporary) barrier. Perhaps I should have started a new thread, instead of participating in an existing one? Jim Till University of Toronto
