Re: STM Releases Related to EC Conference last week

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@gmail.com>]

Sally and I go back and forth on whether we agree mostly or just 
pretty much, but on this issue, our disagreement is firm and not 
likely to be subject to compromise. Of course the creators of 
experimental data should protect that data and seek to be 
compensated for its use.  This means, among other things, that 
publishers should pay universities for access to data sets.  The 
joint statement by the ALPSP and STM last year was a howler:  it 
is always great to see people propose to give away what they 
don't own to begin with.

Universities should exact tolls for research data for the same 
reason that publishers should charge for copyrighted material: 
It introduces a market discipline that sorts out things of value 
from things of less value.  It also encourages product and 
service improvements so that the things of value can climb in the 
estimation of potential customers.  This market discipline is 
harsh, but, like crunchers and chin-ups, we are better for it in 
the end.

There are some people who would gain from an "open data" 
movement, but we already know the names of the losers; here is a 
short list:  The University of California, Harvard, Cornell, 
Princeton, Stanford, The University of Chicago, The University of 
Michigan, Yale, etc., etc., until we reach all of the 2-3 dozen 
major research institutions.  Information and knowledge are 
"exports" of a research university.  It is entirely appropriate, 
and ultimately in a society's best interests, that these 
institutions charge for their services.  Or if not, shall we 
consider free tuition?

Off to the gym.

Joe Esposito

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sally Morris (Morris Associates)" <sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 8:02 AM
Subject: RE: STM Releases Related to EC Conference last week

> ALPSP and STM issued last year a more detailed statement on the 
> free accessibility of data - see 
> http://www.alpsp.org/ForceDownload.asp?id=129
>
> Neither group wanted to claim any ownership over what you call 
> 'the building blocks'
>
> Sally Morris
> Consultant, Morris Associates (Publishing Consultancy)
> South House, The Street
> Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
> Email:  sally@morris-assocs.demon.co.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Tananbaum
> Sent: 20 February 2007 23:07
> To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
> Subject: Re: STM Releases Related to EC Conference last week
>
> An interesting principle laid out in the STM Brussels Declaration
> states:
>
> "Raw research data should be made freely available to all
> researchers. Publishers encourage the public posting of the raw
> data outputs of research. Sets or sub-sets of data that are
> submitted with a paper to a journal should wherever possible be
> made freely accessible to other scholars."
>
> The questions this brings to mind are how the raw data should be
> curated, whether raw data can be effectively
> aggregated/crosswalked, and who should put up the resources
> necessary to host, maintain, and preserve the raw data.
>
> Imagine the day when a researcher interested in Hurricane Katrina
> can readily find a 360 degree research view of the storm.  Tide
> tables and water level information from the meteorologists.
> Hospital admittances and mortality rates from the public health
> experts.  Financial impact studies from the economists.
> Post-traumatic stress incidences from the psychologists.  In the
> drawing together of these various strands of information, the
> potential exists to change the course of scientific research.
>
> It is good to see that STM, ALPSP, and its signatories are not
> (presently) claiming dominion over the building blocks of
> science.
>
> Best, Greg
>
> Greg Tananbaum
> gtananbaum@gmail.com