Hello Stevan, Just a farewell note. I'm finally leaving the AmSci Forum list because I have grown so tired of watching you ride your own particular hobbyhorse that I simply have to leave the room. Below is the message that was the last straw. You made it crisply clear, for the nth time, that you not only have no interest in fairness arguments having to do with making science open and transparent, you also refuse to listen to them and in every case reflexively urge others to shut their mouths and ears.
Such arguments are, to me, as compelling as any argument based on access for researchers. Furthermore, you well know that the traditional publishing system is subsidized to give scholars access (through libraries). The leg you attempt to stand on is a fine argument for library funding and even more liberal policies of library access but truly fails as a sufficient argument for open access online. (And books--what a red herring! You well know that secondary literature--books, magazines, TV programs etc.--is not primary research output. It is not generally what the taxpayer funds. I believe the term for a supposedly logical argument that relies on irrelevant facts is "specious".) I work now at an institution where investigators have access to more or less anything they want. Those faculty who are participating in the Harvard repository are not, as far as I know, doing so for "Harnad reasons." I urge you to respect the motivational power and the principles of those who advocate true open access and even real reform that embraces principles of social responsibility. But others have urged you to, and so I have no illusion that you will ever move your tent to be with the other "occupiers" of science publishing. There are many voices on the list that I will miss. Your shrill one I will not. I believe that I was the very first subscriber to the list so long ago. I thought you deserved a farewell, and perhaps I wanted to finally, albeit privately, get a word in. There would have been no point in saying these things on the list; I have no real standing in this matter as you see it, not being a researcher myself, and you would simply have snapped back with your usual arguments. Too bad. Ros Begin forwarded message: > From: Stevan Harnad <[email protected]> > Date: November 22, 2011 9:06:47 PM EST > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Double-Pay Double-Talk: Not a good justification for Open Access > Reply-To: American Scientist Open Access Forum > <[email protected]> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Michael Eisen <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Under the current model members of the public who >> want to access a paper are paying for THE PAPER twice. They are heavily >> subsidizing the subscriptions that pay for journals - providing far more >> than the cost of publishing through indirect costs and other means. And then >> they're paying again to access the article themselves. > > I wish it were that simple, Mike, but it's not. > > On Fri, 18 Nov 2011, Stevan Harnad wrote: > >> Are tax-payers paying twice when universities pay to buy for their users >> books based on tax-payer funded scholarly and scientific research? >> >> If not, then tax-payers are not "paying twice" when universities pay to buy >> journal subscriptions for their users either. >> >> (Whereas if so, then Open Access is up against a far, far bigger obstacle >> than journal subscription access barriers: They are up against the entire >> book industry, including both its publishers and its authors. And US >> research funder mandates cannot and will not change that.) >> >> Please let's stick to the fair, real, realistic and unassailable rationale >> for mandating open access: >> >> Research is funded (by the tax payer) and conducted and published (by the >> researcher) so that its findings can be accessed, used and built upon by its >> primary intended users (researchers) for the benefit of the tax-payer and >> research progress.
