From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 01:02:55 -0400

On 2012-07-30, Ari Belenkiy wrote in LIBLICENSE:

> Stevan Harnad,
>
> I failed to hear this time the key word "taxpayer" that permeated your
> earlier writings.

Here's the word:

Research is funded by the *tax-payer* so that it can be used, applied and
built upon, toward progress in further research and applications, to the
benefit of the *tax-payer*.

Access-denial denies *tax-payers* the full usage, progress, applications and
benefits from the research they funded.

Research usage, applications, progress and benefits do not come from
restricting access to users in the country in which the research was
funded and conducted. (Not even subscription-access does that!)

Research is global, and the intended users of research are worldwide.

> Thus, the taxpayer's status is unimportant? You argued for the
> well-being of an "ideal" taxpayer - is this a researcher?

Not at all, as you see.

> I cannot see how the modern system prevents a serious researcher from
> an immediate intake in other's research. I did not hear of any
> independent researcher in Medicine who works inside of any institution
> which cannot allow itself to buy all necessary journals.

Look again.

> And the third response on the list convinced me again that it is
> Medicine that matters most for the OA advocates.

I cannot follow. OA is for all research, in all disciplines. What research
fails to benefit from being accessible to all its intended users, rather
than just those that can afford to subscribe?

(Research is not being funded and conducted by the tax-payer in order
to generate access-toll revenue  for the publisher, let alone the researcher.
Refereed research  journal publication is not trade publication. It is written
for research uptake and impact, not for royalty income.)

> Perhaps this is lobbying for the people with serious medical problems.
> Though then your position is quite understandable, you still a
> lobbyist, like any other group with particular interests.

I (and most other OA advocates) are "lobbying" for research progress,
in all disciplines, worldwide.

Stevan Harnad


> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 2:29 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>
>> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:35:40 -0400
>>
>>> From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:50:34 -0700
>>>
>>> Despite his valuable personal recollections, Steven Harnad  so far
>>> failed to answer  two my questions:
>>>
>>> 1. Why the EU research must be immediately open for the non-EU
>>> researchers (who are not, in particularly, EU-taxpayers)?
>>
>> Because research is done and reported in order to be used, applied
>> and built upon by other researchers -- not just those who can
>> subscribe to the journal in which it appeared, or who live in the same
>> country as the researcher.
>>
>>> 2. Why the EU taxpayers, who contribute different amounts in tax, must
>>> have equal opportunities to access the results of the EU research?
>>
>> The primary purpose of providing OA is so that the primary intended
>> users of the research (researchers worldwide) can use, apply and
>> build upon it. Access by the interested public is a secondary bonus.
>>
>>> [Of course, EU could be substituted here for Britain or the US or
>>> Russia or China or etc.]
>>
>> If you want your research findings to be confidential and
>> restricted, you don't publish them at all.
>>
>> OA is for research published in peer-reviewed journals, for all
>> potential users. The journal price-tag is an access-restrictor.
>>
>> Stevan Harnad