Suspicions

abernard102@gmail.com 2016-01-08

Summary:

You seem to be (1) confusing derisiveness (about the risible) with defensiveness, Richard, and (for some longstanding reason I really cannot fathom) (2) confusing openly, publicly "castigat[ing] anyone who dares express a contrary view" with "non-transparency and non-inclusiveness... instinctively [un]democratic." I think you are quite mistaken. There is nothing undemocratic or non-transparent or non-exclusive about open, public criticism, quite the opposite (and regardless of the "hauteur" with which it might be expressed). And I continue to hold and air openly the view -- which you are democratically free to ignore or refute or deride -- that (insofar as EOS or BOAI or your humble servant are concerned) you are sowing suspicions -- about closedness and exclusiveness -- that have no substance whatsoever. I have two interpretations as to why you are doing this, one more charitable, the other less so: The charitable interpretation is that you really believe the suspicions, which are fuelled by (or themselves fuel) your longstanding hypothesis that the reason the open access movement is moving so slowly is that it does not have an umbrella organization that includes all interested parties. (I think the hypothesis is mistaken, and that the slow progress is because of conflicts of interest -- as well as apathy -- that would not be resolved even if it were possible to draw everyone into the same tent.) The uncharitable interpretation -- but even that one, since I know you, and know you have integrity, is only about what may be an unconscious "instinctive" tendency (dare I call it a journalistic one?), rather than a deliberate, calculating strategy -- is that you are airing the suspicions at times when there is no OA news of substance because they draw attention and traffic. RP: "BOAI was a meeting between a small group of like-minded people, and organised by a philanthropist with a specific political agenda. In the wake of that meeting OSI committed several million dollars to fund a number of OA initiatives (and has continued to play a key role in the OA movement since then). As such, those who attended BOAI took the Soros money but did nothing to make the movement “official” or inclusive, or seek to engage the research community in their plans..." I have to leave it to others to reply to this, as I do not think it deserves to be dignified by a response. If I made one it would undoubtedly be derisive...

Link:

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1172-Suspicions.html

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.new oa.comment oa.misunderstandings oa.debates oa.humor

Date tagged:

01/08/2016, 10:51

Date published:

01/08/2016, 05:52