Peter,
You're making the elitist argument against open access, which is a sure
loser. Thankfully you did not make the argument in its worst form - open
access is dangerous to public welfare. But even the-public-is-indifferent
version of the argument fundamentally out of step with information policy
in the U.S. For the reasons why, see
http://carrollogos.blogspot.com/2006/05/insiders-argument-against-open-access.html
Best,
Mike
Michael W. Carroll
Associate Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
299 N. Spring Mill Road
Villanova, PA 19085
610-519-7088 (voice)
610-519-5672 (fax)
blog:
http://www.carrollogos.org/
Research papers:
http://ssrn.com/author=330326
http://law.bepress.com/villanovalwps/
See also www.creativecommons.org
>>> pbanks_at_BANKSPUB.COM 1/29/2007 9:30:55 AM >>>
The reason to focus so much on large medical journals is that, at least in
the United States, policy policy debate regarding scholarly publishing is
almost entirely focused on clinical medicine--and on rather ignorant
misconceptions of how OA can serve the general public.
Exhibit A among the Legislators-Gone-Batty is Sen.John Cornyn: who claimed
this in introducing the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 (S.2695):
³*all Americans will be positively affected as a result of this bill:
Patients diagnosed with a disease or condition will be able to use the
Internet to access the full text of articles containing the latest
information on treatment and prognosis* The Internet gives the homemaker in
Houston the ability to find volumes of information about a recent medical
diagnosis given to a family member.²
I have no met a homemaker in Houston who cares to read the American Journal
of Physiology, no offense to that fine journal.
Received on Mon Jan 29 2007 - 22:00:20 GMT