Comments on: The American Anthropological Association’s lobbying against open acess is so, so misguided http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Thu, 24 May 2012 01:47:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: AAA Open Access FUD « Open Access Anthropology http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-77347 AAA Open Access FUD « Open Access Anthropology Tue, 29 May 2007 13:21:18 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-77347 [...] Tomorrow I will be putting forward a proposal at my college’s faculty meeting that we purchase an AnthroSource subscription for our university. For a university AnthroSource is a great deal, costing less than one tenth the price of some other leading social sciences databases. There is a lot to admire in what the AAA has done with AnthroSource, but it is time for them to stop opposing FRPAA, to stop spreading FUD about Open Access, and to start thinking seriously about alternatives to a business model based on restricting access to our work. [...] [...] Tomorrow I will be putting forward a proposal at my college’s faculty meeting that we purchase an AnthroSource subscription for our university. For a university AnthroSource is a great deal, costing less than one tenth the price of some other leading social sciences databases. There is a lot to admire in what the AAA has done with AnthroSource, but it is time for them to stop opposing FRPAA, to stop spreading FUD about Open Access, and to start thinking seriously about alternatives to a business model based on restricting access to our work. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Petition for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research in the United States « Open Access Anthropology http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-60822 Petition for Public Access to Publicly Funded Research in the United States « Open Access Anthropology Sat, 24 Mar 2007 02:54:21 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-60822 [...] 23rd, 2007 · No Comments A petition in support of FRPAA. It was the AAA’s signing of a letter opposing FRPAA that ledto the founding of Open Access Anthropology. This petition builds on the 24,000+ signatures collected from around the world in support of free and open access to European research and for the recommendations proposed in the EU’s ‘Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe’ as well as the 132 higher education leaders who have written of their explicit support for public access to publicly funded research. [...] [...] 23rd, 2007 · No Comments A petition in support of FRPAA. It was the AAA’s signing of a letter opposing FRPAA that ledto the founding of Open Access Anthropology. This petition builds on the 24,000+ signatures collected from around the world in support of free and open access to European research and for the recommendations proposed in the EU’s ‘Study on the Economic and Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe’ as well as the 132 higher education leaders who have written of their explicit support for public access to publicly funded research. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Cultural Anthropology 2.0 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-47302 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Cultural Anthropology 2.0 Tue, 16 Jan 2007 14:30:19 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-47302 [...] The first issue of Cultural Anthropology under the editorship of Kim and Mike Fortun is out, and I am a willing participant in the media blitz. The first issue has a few articles that look great (although, as we already know, you need to be a AAA member to access them). One is an article on memory in Sierra Leone—articulating nicely with an article in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine on child soldiers—I’d love to see her reading of the use of memory in that autobiography. An article by Ilana Feldman on Human Rights in Palestine and an article by Michael M.J. Fischer revisiting culture. [...] [...] The first issue of Cultural Anthropology under the editorship of Kim and Mike Fortun is out, and I am a willing participant in the media blitz. The first issue has a few articles that look great (although, as we already know, you need to be a AAA member to access them). One is an article on memory in Sierra Leone—articulating nicely with an article in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine on child soldiers—I’d love to see her reading of the use of memory in that autobiography. An article by Ilana Feldman on Human Rights in Palestine and an article by Michael M.J. Fischer revisiting culture. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » 2006 Highlights http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-45228 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » 2006 Highlights Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:19:44 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-45228 [...] Anthropology of the Spirit: “everybody’s got a body, and it is surprising and interesting to learn about how the taken-for-grantedness of that body is historically/socially/culturally constructed. But not everybody has a spirit.” What is good anthropological writing?: “Which were the texts that made an indelible impression on you, and why? Any answer to this question has to be biographical.” The Invention of the World: Islam in the West: “the importance of Muslim scholarship to Columbus’ voyage cannot be overestimated” Found Mag meets Savage Minds: “Sometimes it’s better to have a hand-scratched, seat-of-the-pants expression of deep knowledge over a real-time, social software, scale-free, really simple, ajax-enhanced, web 2.0 instant access to scholarship.” World Simulation: Part One: Constructing the World: “In my last post, I described my ‘anti-teaching’ philosophy that led me to experiment with different ways of teaching cultural anthropology in very large introductory classes. So far, the most radical and intensive experiment I have tried is the ‘World Simulation.’” Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint Alternatives: “Power corrupts: PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.” Reading circle: let’s do Friction: This page archives all of our posts from this summer’s discussion of Tsing’s popular experimental ethnography, Friction. The American Anthropological Association’s lobbying against open acess is so, so misguided: “In other words, in order for publishers to argue that it will become unprofitable for them to run a journal because of competition from open access repositories, they must argue that they provide very little value to a journal as a product.” 30 Days of Cinétrance: “Despite the fact that one of the prime motivations for producing reality TV is saving costs on writers and actors, it does seem to draw heavily from the social sciences.” In the Flesh in the Museum: “From the first European contact with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere onward, Indians had been exhibited in royal courts, traveling shows, circuses, and world fairs and expositions.” Junking the Nature/Culture Divide: “Pharmaceutical projects and products redefine the horizons of possible human being.” Places and Frames: Reading Bruno Latour on Holiday: “Latour proposes that there is nothing intrinsically contextual about place, that place is simply a staging or framing for traces and associations, near and distant, past and present. Context as such does not exist as a factor which explains or accounts for a place.” Conspiracy Theory and Social Theory: “in many ways conspiracy theories are like social theory” Is motherhood natural?: “Many introductory kinship texts begin by pointing out that while fatherhood is frequently non-obvious, motherhood never is.” Book Review: The Politics of the Governed, Part 1: “’Political society’ is the politics of subjects who wish to have the same rights as citizens, but are excluded (by dint of their very marginalization) from civil society.” You Only Link Twice: Spying 2.0: “an article about the US and defense intelligence agencies’ attempts to generate as much useful information as the blogosphere and wikipedia.” [...] [...] Anthropology of the Spirit: “everybody’s got a body, and it is surprising and interesting to learn about how the taken-for-grantedness of that body is historically/socially/culturally constructed. But not everybody has a spirit.” What is good anthropological writing?: “Which were the texts that made an indelible impression on you, and why? Any answer to this question has to be biographical.” The Invention of the World: Islam in the West: “the importance of Muslim scholarship to Columbus’ voyage cannot be overestimated” Found Mag meets Savage Minds: “Sometimes it’s better to have a hand-scratched, seat-of-the-pants expression of deep knowledge over a real-time, social software, scale-free, really simple, ajax-enhanced, web 2.0 instant access to scholarship.” World Simulation: Part One: Constructing the World: “In my last post, I described my ‘anti-teaching’ philosophy that led me to experiment with different ways of teaching cultural anthropology in very large introductory classes. So far, the most radical and intensive experiment I have tried is the ‘World Simulation.’” Technology in the Classroom: PowerPoint Alternatives: “Power corrupts: PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.” Reading circle: let’s do Friction: This page archives all of our posts from this summer’s discussion of Tsing’s popular experimental ethnography, Friction. The American Anthropological Association’s lobbying against open acess is so, so misguided: “In other words, in order for publishers to argue that it will become unprofitable for them to run a journal because of competition from open access repositories, they must argue that they provide very little value to a journal as a product.” 30 Days of Cinétrance: “Despite the fact that one of the prime motivations for producing reality TV is saving costs on writers and actors, it does seem to draw heavily from the social sciences.” In the Flesh in the Museum: “From the first European contact with the native peoples of the Western Hemisphere onward, Indians had been exhibited in royal courts, traveling shows, circuses, and world fairs and expositions.” Junking the Nature/Culture Divide: “Pharmaceutical projects and products redefine the horizons of possible human being.” Places and Frames: Reading Bruno Latour on Holiday: “Latour proposes that there is nothing intrinsically contextual about place, that place is simply a staging or framing for traces and associations, near and distant, past and present. Context as such does not exist as a factor which explains or accounts for a place.” Conspiracy Theory and Social Theory: “in many ways conspiracy theories are like social theory” Is motherhood natural?: “Many introductory kinship texts begin by pointing out that while fatherhood is frequently non-obvious, motherhood never is.” Book Review: The Politics of the Governed, Part 1: “’Political society’ is the politics of subjects who wish to have the same rights as citizens, but are excluded (by dint of their very marginalization) from civil society.” You Only Link Twice: Spying 2.0: “an article about the US and defense intelligence agencies’ attempts to generate as much useful information as the blogosphere and wikipedia.” [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Digging Digitally » Important Development with Anthropology and FRPAA http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-33276 Digging Digitally » Important Development with Anthropology and FRPAA Fri, 06 Oct 2006 18:45:37 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-33276 [...] Here is yet another interesting development in the world of Anthropology as it relates to the FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act). As many will remember, the American Anthropological Association came out in public opposition to FRPAA. In part, the AAA based its opposition to FRPPA because of a perceived threat to the financial sustainability of AnthroSource, its digital dissemination system (see their FAQ). As reported in the “Savage Minds” blog, the AnthroSource Steering Committee was not consulted on this decision. [...] [...] Here is yet another interesting development in the world of Anthropology as it relates to the FRPAA (Federal Research Public Access Act). As many will remember, the American Anthropological Association came out in public opposition to FRPAA. In part, the AAA based its opposition to FRPPA because of a perceived threat to the financial sustainability of AnthroSource, its digital dissemination system (see their FAQ). As reported in the “Savage Minds” blog, the AnthroSource Steering Committee was not consulted on this decision. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Should we outsource anthropology? http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-29363 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Should we outsource anthropology? Sun, 17 Sep 2006 14:03:39 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-29363 [...] The move towards collaborative ethnography discussed by Marcus highlights the important role anthropologists play in enabling our collaborators to be producers of anthropological knowledge. Yet as much as new technology has enabled the shared “imaginary” Marcus talks about, there is one area where Anthropology has yet to take the most important step. In June of this year the AAA signed on to a letter expressing (on our behalf!) the organizations opposition to the Federal Research Public Access Act which would have required “final manuscripts of peer-reviewed journal articles based on federally-funded research to be made freely available on government-hosted websites six months after publication.” How can anthropologists work collaboratively with people who are unlikely to have free access to the same body of knowledge that we do? At a time when rural villages in India have web access the subaltern can now start their own blogs, indeed they are doing so already, but they still can’t read anthropology articles online. Marcus describes anthropologists and their collaborators as having millenarian aspirations towards impacting health policy; but Anthropological Journals have yet to follow medical journals in adopting an Open Access model of publication. [...] [...] The move towards collaborative ethnography discussed by Marcus highlights the important role anthropologists play in enabling our collaborators to be producers of anthropological knowledge. Yet as much as new technology has enabled the shared “imaginary” Marcus talks about, there is one area where Anthropology has yet to take the most important step. In June of this year the AAA signed on to a letter expressing (on our behalf!) the organizations opposition to the Federal Research Public Access Act which would have required “final manuscripts of peer-reviewed journal articles based on federally-funded research to be made freely available on government-hosted websites six months after publication.” How can anthropologists work collaboratively with people who are unlikely to have free access to the same body of knowledge that we do? At a time when rural villages in India have web access the subaltern can now start their own blogs, indeed they are doing so already, but they still can’t read anthropology articles online. Marcus describes anthropologists and their collaborators as having millenarian aspirations towards impacting health policy; but Anthropological Journals have yet to follow medical journals in adopting an Open Access model of publication. [...]

Report this comment

]]> By: bkap http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-25069 bkap Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:45:21 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-25069 Sorry. The blockquote didn't work out as I'd planned. I was trying to quote point #3 above. Sorry. The blockquote didn’t work out as I’d planned. I was trying to quote point #3 above.

Report this comment

]]> By: bkap http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-25067 bkap Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:43:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-25067 <blockquote cite="3) I believe that anthropology is not frivolous research and I think we can prove it to tax payers—especially when our work is freely accessible to them."> This would be the challenge then, as always and as it should be. Prove it to the taxpayers. How are your research and findings relevent to the "average" taxpayer and what does it mean to all? That your cowboy is armed with the same information as your professor could define casual or activist interest in your research from a variety of prospectives, the least of which is not public conceptions of "frivolous research". It certainly would add a whole other dimension to the research process if the quest need be tied into the greater reality, as it were. Could be the beginning of yet another liberal arts revival on tomorrow's college campuses as the search for social relevance rears it's ugly head.</blockquote>

This would be the challenge then, as always and as it should be. Prove it to the taxpayers. How are your research and findings relevent to the “average” taxpayer and what does it mean to all? That your cowboy is armed with the same information as your professor could define casual or activist interest in your research from a variety of prospectives, the least of which is not public conceptions of “frivolous research”. It certainly would add a whole other dimension to the research process if the quest need be tied into the greater reality, as it were. Could be the beginning of yet another liberal arts revival on tomorrow’s college campuses as the search for social relevance rears it’s ugly head.

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-14411 Rex Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:35:03 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-14411 Josh -- I think our disagreement lies in the overly simplistic view you have of how people access information. People's ability to be alerted to the existence of content and to access that content is critically shaped by, as it were, the architecture of the institutions in which they live and act. Faculty members with access to a large research library which subscribes to thousands of journals and online databases can access information quickly and easily, whether it be by downloading dissertations from their offices or skimming the table of contents of an entire run of a journal while browsing in the stacks. Cowboys who are not academics who live in rural areas and have to travel a half hour to a small under-funded library do not have access to these resources. It is true that they may be able -- somehow -- to hear about an article in a journal they want to read, fill out an ILL request, and then after a month the journal issue may arrive and they can drive a half hour to pick it up. Both the professor and the cowboy may have 'free access' to 'the same information'. But only in the most trivial sense of the word. I use extreme examples for illustrative purposes but the point holds even in other more moderate cases: the architecture of institutions matter -- a fact that is obvious to anyone who has done research in a small library dependent on ILL. Which I'm guessing you haven't. As for your assertion that I believe that tax payers are being "ripped off" because they are paying twice for research, I can only say you are putting words in my mouth. As I said in my post, for years we have paid twice because for-profit publication of content was the most efficient way of getting access to content. We weren't being 'ripped off.' My point is that now we have other options to explore and we should explore them to see if there isn't a better way. Finally, you claim the AAA is secretly being lured into some attempt to destroy its research funding. This seems absolutely bizarre to me. 1) recent attempts to cut funding to the behavioral sciences have been quite overt (i.e. the recent attempts to change NSF) why do you think secret methods are being used to bring us to the 'chopping block' 2) It is not clear to me how much anthropology IS funded via institutions covered by FRPAA. Wenner Grenn, SSRC, university grants to faculty, and so forth cover a lot of research in anthropology -- especially post-dissertation work. 3) I believe that anthropology is not frivolous research and I think we can prove it to tax payers -- especially when our work is freely accessible to them. So in sum although you accuse me of a sort of religious fanaticism (millenarianism) but you seem to be the one with the strongly-held, but weakly-argued claims. Josh — I think our disagreement lies in the overly simplistic view you have of how people access information.

People’s ability to be alerted to the existence of content and to access that content is critically shaped by, as it were, the architecture of the institutions in which they live and act. Faculty members with access to a large research library which subscribes to thousands of journals and online databases can access information quickly and easily, whether it be by downloading dissertations from their offices or skimming the table of contents of an entire run of a journal while browsing in the stacks.

Cowboys who are not academics who live in rural areas and have to travel a half hour to a small under-funded library do not have access to these resources. It is true that they may be able — somehow — to hear about an article in a journal they want to read, fill out an ILL request, and then after a month the journal issue may arrive and they can drive a half hour to pick it up.

Both the professor and the cowboy may have ‘free access’ to ‘the same information’. But only in the most trivial sense of the word. I use extreme examples for illustrative purposes but the point holds even in other more moderate cases: the architecture of institutions matter — a fact that is obvious to anyone who has done research in a small library dependent on ILL. Which I’m guessing you haven’t.

As for your assertion that I believe that tax payers are being “ripped off” because they are paying twice for research, I can only say you are putting words in my mouth. As I said in my post, for years we have paid twice because for-profit publication of content was the most efficient way of getting access to content. We weren’t being ‘ripped off.’ My point is that now we have other options to explore and we should explore them to see if there isn’t a better way.

Finally, you claim the AAA is secretly being lured into some attempt to destroy its research funding. This seems absolutely bizarre to me. 1) recent attempts to cut funding to the behavioral sciences have been quite overt (i.e. the recent attempts to change NSF) why do you think secret methods are being used to bring us to the ‘chopping block’ 2) It is not clear to me how much anthropology IS funded via institutions covered by FRPAA. Wenner Grenn, SSRC, university grants to faculty, and so forth cover a lot of research in anthropology — especially post-dissertation work. 3) I believe that anthropology is not frivolous research and I think we can prove it to tax payers — especially when our work is freely accessible to them.

So in sum although you accuse me of a sort of religious fanaticism (millenarianism) but you seem to be the one with the strongly-held, but weakly-argued claims.

Report this comment

]]> By: josh http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-14401 josh Mon, 17 Jul 2006 19:40:55 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-14401 What I am reacting to is, first, the idea that "tax payers" are somehow being ripped off when publicly funded research is published in academic journals (journals that -at present - anyone with a degree of interest - heard of nter-library loan? - can access for free already. Second, I know you all are caught up in open source millenarianism, but I really think that you are missing the point of the bill. The intent, I believe, is in part to create a one-stop shop for critics of "frivolous" research funded by the federal government. If you don’t think that anthropology will be the first thing on the chopping block, you are blind. Of course, given some of the comments in this thread, many around here aren’t exactly fans of the peer review system. Watch what you wish for: a system in which the mob decides what research should and should not be funded – to which the bill brings us a step closer – will not be one that is friendly to anthropology. What I am reacting to is, first, the idea that “tax payers” are somehow being ripped off when publicly funded research is published in academic journals (journals that -at present – anyone with a degree of interest – heard of nter-library loan? – can access for free already.

Second, I know you all are caught up in open source millenarianism, but I really think that you are missing the point of the bill. The intent, I believe, is in part to create a one-stop shop for critics of “frivolous” research funded by the federal government. If you don’t think that anthropology will be the first thing on the chopping block, you are blind. Of course, given some of the comments in this thread, many around here aren’t exactly fans of the peer review system. Watch what you wish for: a system in which the mob decides what research should and should not be funded – to which the bill brings us a step closer – will not be one that is friendly to anthropology.

Report this comment

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-14216 Rex Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:19:41 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-14216 Josh -- I\'m not sure what claim your example of libraries is meant to support. Can you be more specific? Public libraries are a great example of a \'hobbled repository\' -- they provide free access to information, but makes it inconvenient enough to access that information (i.e. you have to return the book and xeroxing all of it is a pain) that publishers are still able to sell their produce to the general public. In fact the coexistence of libraries and the contemporary publishing industry is a great example of how open access to information and for-profit publishing can coincide. Of course, there are people out there who think that libraries should be shut down because they cut into publisher\'s sales. But then again there are also people who think marriage should be illegal because of the unfair barriers to competition it raises for prostitutes. Josh — I\’m not sure what claim your example of libraries is meant to support. Can you be more specific? Public libraries are a great example of a \’hobbled repository\’ — they provide free access to information, but makes it inconvenient enough to access that information (i.e. you have to return the book and xeroxing all of it is a pain) that publishers are still able to sell their produce to the general public. In fact the coexistence of libraries and the contemporary publishing industry is a great example of how open access to information and for-profit publishing can coincide.

Of course, there are people out there who think that libraries should be shut down because they cut into publisher\’s sales. But then again there are also people who think marriage should be illegal because of the unfair barriers to competition it raises for prostitutes.

Report this comment

]]> By: Kerim http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-14213 Kerim Mon, 17 Jul 2006 04:14:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-14213 One also needs to consider what counts as a "good" library. How many people actually have ready access to one? If there is government research on a critical health issue, shouldn't that be available to anyone with web access? One also needs to consider what counts as a “good” library. How many people actually have ready access to one? If there is government research on a critical health issue, shouldn’t that be available to anyone with web access?

Report this comment

]]> By: oneman http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-14206 oneman Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:11:12 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-14206 Josh, The issue isn't access to published material -- most academics are more than aware of the value of a good library. The issue is access to material that is *not* published -- publicly-funded research that becomes "intellectual property" or, worse, "trade secrets" of private corporate entities. That you /won't/ find in your library. Josh,

The issue isn’t access to published material — most academics are more than aware of the value of a good library. The issue is access to material that is *not* published — publicly-funded research that becomes “intellectual property” or, worse, “trade secrets” of private corporate entities. That you /won’t/ find in your library.

Report this comment

]]> By: josh http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-14189 josh Mon, 17 Jul 2006 01:38:49 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-14189 "The result: tax payers pay twice for access to research, and journals make a profit selling a product subsidized by the unpaid work of peer reviewers and government funded research." Jeesh, where to begin? Rex, have you ever heard of a library? Last time I checked, mine was stocked full of those paper and ink journal thingys and - lo and behold - I didn't have to pay a dime to "access" them. I really weep for anthropology. The AAA takes a (rare) sensible stand and, immediately, the circular firing squad forms... “The result: tax payers pay twice for access to research, and journals make a profit selling a product subsidized by the unpaid work of peer reviewers and government funded research.”

Jeesh, where to begin? Rex, have you ever heard of a library? Last time I checked, mine was stocked full of those paper and ink journal thingys and – lo and behold – I didn’t have to pay a dime to “access” them. I really weep for anthropology. The AAA takes a (rare) sensible stand and, immediately, the circular firing squad forms…

Report this comment

]]> By: Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Experiments in Open Peer Review http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/comment-page-1/#comment-10246 Savage Minds: Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog » Experiments in Open Peer Review Sat, 17 Jun 2006 01:23:28 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/12/the-american-anthropological-association-lobbying-against-open-acess-is-really-really-wrong/#comment-10246 [...] Apropos of Rex’s recent post on the so so misguided actions of the AAA, here is an excellent commentary on an experiment in “open peer review” by biologists. The people involved in Biology Direct have started an experiment in completely open peer review—all of the reviewers are named, as are the authors, authors suggest reviewers and the only criteria for submission is that the author find three people willing to review the piece. The people responsible for this experiment are cautiously optimistic about the results (it started only in Jan. of this year), but they have managed to get a number of well known biologists to sign on, and enthusiastically so. [...] [...] Apropos of Rex’s recent post on the so so misguided actions of the AAA, here is an excellent commentary on an experiment in “open peer review” by biologists. The people involved in Biology Direct have started an experiment in completely open peer review—all of the reviewers are named, as are the authors, authors suggest reviewers and the only criteria for submission is that the author find three people willing to review the piece. The people responsible for this experiment are cautiously optimistic about the results (it started only in Jan. of this year), but they have managed to get a number of well known biologists to sign on, and enthusiastically so. [...]

Report this comment

]]>