In this post Richard Fisher argues that "polemical articles by Open Access enthusiasts claiming to know 'what researchers want' (when in reality what they mean is 'what I and my immediate peer groups would find most helpful') can be profoundly off-putting to those outside the circle of advocacy." There's a presumption of "universal acceptance of the principles behind Open Access" which leads him to "wonder which planet these agencies are inhabiting." Some examples: in STEM, research is used to create other products and services, which ultimately pay for the research, but in non-STEM fields the research output is the product. Moreover, "the presumption that 'the law' is, fundamentally, that law which applies to the state of California" is clearly mistaken." Even the "'taxpayer pays' arguments for Open Access" is weak, he argues, especially in research-exporting jurisdictions like the UK "where at least 80% of the consumers of British-originated research will not have contributed direct tax revenues towards its creation." There are some interesting points here.
Today: 0 Total: 90 [Direct link] [Share]
