Science in the Open » Blog Archive » The Research Works Act and the breakdown of mutual incomprehension 2012-08-20


“When the history of the Research Works Act, and the reaction against it, is written that history... will detail two utterly incompatible world views of scholarly communication... The publisher world view places them as the owner and guardian of scholarly communications... Crucial to this world view is a belief that research communication, the process of writing and publishing papers, is separate to the research itself... The researcher’s perspective is entirely different. Researchers view their outputs as their own property, both the ideas, the physical outputs, and the communications... So the environment that set the scene for the Research Works Act revolt was a combination of simmering resentment amongst researchers for the cost of accessing the literature, combined with a lack of understanding of what it is publishers actually do... But it is of course the funder perspective that we haven’t yet discussed and looking forward, in my view it is the action of funders that will render both the publisher and researcher perspective incomprehensible in ten years time. The NIH view, similar to that of the Wellcome Trust, and indeed every funder I have spoken to, is that research communication is an intrinsic part of the research they fund. Funders take a close interest in the outputs that their research generates. One might say a proprietorial interest...”



08/16/2012, 06:08

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) »

Tags: oa.business_models oa.publishers oa.comment oa.usa oa.legislation oa.negative oa.rwa oa.nih oa.copyright oa.funders oa.wellcome



Date tagged:

08/20/2012, 15:17

Date published:

02/03/2012, 15:43