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)? 2. Why the EU taxpayers, who contribute different amounts in tax, must have equal opportunities to access the results of the EU research? [Of course, EU could be substituted here for Britain or the US or Russia or China or etc.] Ari Belenkiy On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:56 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 01:26:01 -0400 > > I am flattered that Dr. Watkinson feels I had special influence on Ian > Gibson and his Select Committee. I wish I had had. But alas the truth > is as I have already written: I was not one of the 23 witnesses invited > to give oral evidence (several publishers were). Ian's parliamentary > assistant Sarah Revell pencilled me in for a personal appointment on > Wednesday October 13 2004 if Ian's jury duty ended in time (it did) but > my recall of that breathless brief audience was that it was too > compressed for me to be able to stutter out much that made sense, > and I left it pretty pessimistic. And my over-zealous attempts to > compensate for it via email were very politely but firmly discouraged > by the committee's very able clerk, Emily Commander. So my input > amounted to being one of the 127 who submitted written evidence, > plus that tachylalic audience on the 13th. The rest of the influence > on the committee was from written reasons, not personal charisma. > > As to publishers, and learned-society publishers: they are pretty > much of a muchness in their fealty to their bottom lines. The only > learned societies that could testify with a disinterested voice (let > alone one that represented the interests of learned research > rather than earned revenues) were the learned societies that > that were not also publishers. > > Stevan Harnad > > On 2012-07-22, at 10:42 PM, LIBLICENSE wrote: > > > From: ANTHONY WATKINSON <[log in to unmask]> > > Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:44:48 +0100 > > > > Of course publishers are going to lobby against the green route to > > open access: the arguments from publishers are well known and in no > > way hidden and whether or not the lobbying is aggressive is a matter > > of one's own perceptions surely. > > > > Going back to 2003/2004 I was asked to be the expert adviser to the > > committee that we both referred to and had a pleasant conversation > > with Ian Gibson, the member of parliament who was the committee chair. > > It seemed to me in our conversation that Dr. Gibson had already been > > lobbied by Professor Harnad or his disciplines and that his mind was > > already made up. I cannot remember now whether or not Dr. Gibson said > > that he had met Professor Harnad but it was definitely the impression > > I had. > > > > Anyway I refused the opportunity of influence because I did not think > > I could be dispassionate. I did propose working with someone closer to > > Professor Harnad's views (whom I named) and recommended other people > > who were neutral and could do the job. In the end Dr. Gibson plumped > > for David Worlock, who was an excellent choice. > > > > I just do not believe on the basis of what others have told me - I > > have no direct knowledge and nor clearly has Professor Harnad - that > > the decisions of the Finch committee were pre-determined. Members of > > the committee I have spoken to do not confirm Professor Harnad's > > statements. > > > > I find this statement fascinating: > > > > "There were more -- Learned Societies are publishers too -- but three > > publishers would already be three too many in a committee on providing > > open access to publicly funded research". > > > > I am impressed by the suggestion that Professor Harnad actually thinks > > that learned societies, organisations that represent the academic > > communities, should not be involved in decisions which will have such > > an impact on the said academic communities! > > > > Anthony Watkinson