Re: The OA Deposit-Fee Kerfuffle: APA's Not Responsible; NIH Is

From: Stevan Harnad <amsciforum_at_GMAIL.COM>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:44:15 -0400

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Jean-Claude Guédon wrote:

> I am a little puzzled by Stevan Harnad's accusation of
> conditional".  When he writes: "It would certainly have put APA in
> very bad light if, having given its authors the green light to
> self-archive in their own IRs, APA then decided to slap a $2500
> ticket on them for going ahead and doing so!", is this not another
> hypothetical conditional?

It is indeed (in fact, it is a historical counterfactual
conditional), but it is supported by the actual historical facts: APA
did not, in fact, slap a traffic ticket on IR deposit, to which it
gave its green light; it slapped a surcharge on PMC deposit, to which
it did not give its green light. 

And now APA is being put in a bad light because it slapped a
surcharge on PMC deposit, not because it slapped a traffic ticket on
IR deposit (which it did not do).

Contrast this with:

>>  If the NIH mandated deposit in IRs instead of
>>  PMC, then the APA would demand a $2,500 fee for deposit in
>>  IRs, and the fee would be equally noxious and indefensible.

This is a hypothetical future conjecture, that APA would slap a
traffic ticket on IR deposit if it were mandated, for which there is
no supporting evidence (and which is very likely false).

Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Jul 18 2008 - 13:49:06 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:49:22 GMT