From: Ari Belenkiy <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:53:26 -0800

Peggy,

If NOT a ONE independent researcher looks into your writings and
approves it, it just a piece of paper with text, a "diary" if you
wish. Independently of how many agencies contributed to it with grants
etc.

It is an interesting problem on its own to find a relative weight for
the original text and its approval by two independent experts.

You seem to dismiss the latter altogether as insignificant, while I
believe the score is 50:50.

Ari Belenkiy


On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:12 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: "Hoon, Peggy" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 16:32:56 +0000
>
> Even given this scenario, which I am not convinced is universally paid for
> by publishers, the publisher, in no way comes out as the "greatest"
> contributor.  Indeed, my point was not to say that the publisher made no
> important contribution to the finished product but to point out the other
> tremendously critical contributors - the faculty member, the funder, the
> supporting institution - without which there would be nothing to peer
> review.  The question still stands as to why this one contributor should
> be the single holder of the resulting IP.  That is, take away the other
> heavy hitters - the faculty member/researcher/author, the funds supporting
> him/her and the entity supplying the salary, facilities, etc. - give what
> you have without them to a peer reviewer-paid or not - and see how long it
> takes them to look at a blank piece of paper.
>
> The major US Federal funding agencies have clearly reached this same
> conclusion and are asserting right of control over taxpayer monies given
> to researchers pursuant to grants by mandating open access to the
> resulting manuscript.
>
> Respectfully,
> Peggy Hoon