Re: Rebuttal of STM Response to RCUK Self-Archiving Policy Proposal

[Heather Morrison <heatherm@eln.bc.ca>]

On 7-Sep-05, at 1:49 PM, Pieter Bolman wrote:

> Dear Ann
>
> As Professor Harnad has applied the Open Access principle to private
> correspondence such as our letter to the Chair of RCUK by widely
> publicising a 'rebuttal' to it,
[snip]

> In summary, STM believes that it would be in the interest of the
> research community and the broader community as a whole if STM and RCUK
> start a serious and systematic dialogue,
[snip]

Stevan Harnad has done an excellent job of rebutting the specifics of this
letter.

One big picture element I would like to highlight by juxtaposing the two
statements above:  the STM publishers are basically suggesting here that
STM and RCUK (business and government) should conduct a serious and
systematic dialogue, apparently in private.  Or, at least the suggestion
was apparently meant to be in private.

There are many stakeholders in the outcome of RCUK funded research:  the
taxpayers / general public, libraries, universities, and professionals -
not to mention the researchers themselves!

The purpose of the publishing industry is to serve the interests of these
other key stakeholders, not the other way around.

Secret business/government dialogues are not the means of deciding public
policy that one expects from a democracy!

Thanks for sharing this, Pieter Bolman.  If you, or the STM group, have
any other comments to inform public policy in the U.K. or any other
country, I very much encourage you to share them publicly in the first
place.

best,

Heather Morrison