[Journal-notes] Re: Critique of research Fortnight article on RCUK policy proposal

Stevan Harnad harnad at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Mon Sep 19 15:53:32 EST 2005


Two points omitted from the prior posting; apologies for 2 postings that should
have been one:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2005, [Identity Deleted] wrote:
> >
> > [Librarians] see the value in peer review

Well the endorsement of peer review by librarians is very nice, but
the fact is, peer review's not done for librarians! It's done by and
for researchers.

> > [Librarians] do not wish to be limited in what they can and can't do 
> > with the final version of the article.

Articles are not self-archived and made OA for what librarians can
and can't do with them: They are self-archived and made OA for what
researchers can do with them -- and can't do without them.

[Reminder: Self-archived articles are accessible 24/7 to all, webwide,
for searching, browsing, reading, downloading, storing, computational
crunching, printing off, using, applying building upon, citing, and
putting metadata and URL in course lists. They are also picked up by
harvesters like Google. The above point sounds like yet another iteration
of the empty free-access/open-access distinction, usually invoked by
promoters of OA publishing whenever faced with the koan of why an author
would want to switch journals for OA when they can keep their journals and
simply self-archive --  as, one hopes, the authors of the 130,000 research
journal articles published annually in the UK will soon be doing.]

     " Maximising the Return on the UK's Public Investment in Research"
     http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html

    "Free Access vs. Open Access" (started, August 2003)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2956.html

Stevan Harnad





More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list