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