RE: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions

["Velterop, Jan, Springer UK" <Jan.Velterop@springer.com>]

Of course it is a 'political' statement; it only applies if one 
accepts that formally publishing the results is integral to doing 
research.

And of course it's perfectly possible to do research and not to 
publish it. In fact, it happens all the time, behind the walls of 
companies engaged in research and development with a view to 
obtaining patents and the like.

But what's the point of research funded by public money (in the 
widest sense of the word) if it's not published? Research for the 
sake of...of what? Whilst it may be true that "funding agencies 
have traditionally provided money to support the creation of 
information through research, but not the formal publication or 
distribution of it", tradition is about the past, not the future. 
Besides, they 'traditionally' also insisted that grant applicants 
show their scientific prowess by presenting an impressive CV, 
full of references to their formally published articles.

As for the "need to demonstrate that the general welfare is 
better served by the free distribution of less information than 
it is by the creation of more information", the question arises 
what all that extra information is worth, if it's not shared. 
Knowledge that remains hidden is to all intents and purposes no 
knowledge.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu on behalf of Rick 
Anderson
Sent: Tue 5/22/2007 6:27 PM
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Critique 
of PRC

> But money spent on 'gold' OA is not 'removed' from research,
> particularly not if you understand and accept that formally
> publishing the results is integral to doing research.

That's a political argument -- a "should" argument -- rather than
a statement of fact.  This is a statement of fact: it costs a
certain amount of money to create information by performing
research, and it is entirely possible (whether or not desirable)
to do research and then publish nothing.  If you choose to
publish the results of your research, additional costs will be
involved.  There are many granting agencies that have
traditionally provided money to support the creation of
information through research, but not the formal publication or
distribution of it.  There may be good arguments for having those
granting agencies start funding the second part as well -- but
there's no way for them to do so without redirecting money from
their support of actual research.  A good argument, it seems to
me, would need to demonstrate that the general welfare is better
served by the free distribution of less information than it is by
the creation of more information.

By the way, I'm happy to keep rephrasing this basic point as many
times as it takes.  :-)

---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand@unr.edu