Comments on: John Conyers and Open Access http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/ Blog, news, books Mon, 06 Feb 2017 12:39:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.2 By: اشعار حب http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-33286 Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:04:30 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-33286 This is a great post. Thank you for bringing it to people’s attention.

]]>
By: Clem Weidenbenner http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-866 Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:36:43 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-866 Sander: An excellent point – that scientists have less choice if open access is mandated. But I wonder whether a certain contract isn’t in force before a manuscript is even prepared? When one seeks grant support from an agency requiring open access publication, haven’t they already made a choice? I’m sympathetic to the argument for cases in which the rules changed during the process – Dr Joe gets an NIH grant on Monday, and on Tuesday learns he’ll need to skip publishing in Nature. But even in this instance it seems to me there are many excellent choices at Dr Joe’s disposal. Publishing in PNAS and paying the fee to be open access hardly seems a step backward to me. Am I missing something here?

]]>
By: John http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-865 Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:06:54 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-865 Josh: Which is why the tenure & promotion culture of Universities needs to change. Without the requirement of publishing in the most prestigious journals, faculty and researchers would be free to publish in open access publications.

]]>
By: Josh http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-864 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 15:42:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-864 Sander: the bill does seem to be written as a defense of choice, but that’s on the surface. Academic scientists — which is most of us — must publish to get jobs and get promoted. That’s why we call it “publish or perish.” So while technically one could “choose” not to publish in a journal, the alternative isn’t a very good one.

]]>
By: Rick http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-863 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 23:58:55 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-863 “Well no one can know what goes on the heart or mind of Congressman Conyers”

Truer words were never spoken. He seems to have his daylight positions, like adopting a stronger position than the Senate on investigation of the Bush Administration’s activities, but this one seems to be one of his more shadowy ones. Has Conyers publicly offered justification for the bill?

]]>
By: Michael Sander http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-862 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:58:24 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-862 I think I see the problem here.

Lessig’s statement that the “business model of the scientist is to spread his or her knowledge as widely as possible” is false. If that were true then scientists wouldn’t submit their work to journals that charged money for access.

I think there are different motivations at work here. Scientists are motivated by recognition of their intelligence and work by their peers. They publish articles in Nature rather than The Public Library of Science because Nature is more prestigious and will likely lead to a more successful career.

If you oppose this legislation I think you have to be clear why… We value free access of scientist’s research over the scientist’s interest in being published in a journal of their choice. That is a fair and reasonable value judgment. But, to be clear, in making the choice we are taking something away from scientists.

]]>
By: Liane http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-861 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:36:25 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-861 If you own a private company and someone using your company’s funds invents something new, you get the rights. This is the equivalent for the public sector: if someone using our (public) funds invents something, we get the rights. Publicly funded work should be available to the public.

]]>
By: Michael Sander http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-860 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:24:05 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-860 I’m not sure this bill would have such negative impact:
“The law would forbid entities like the NIH from requiring that recipients of government grants make the product of their research openly accessible.”
As I understand it, the law would let the scientists keep the rights to their work. Under the bill, if a scientist wants to release their research for free they can; if they she wants to publish the work in a proprietary journal they can. They retain the choice on how to release their information. As you said, the “business model of the scientist is to spread his or her knowledge as widely as possible.” If that statement is true, then the scientist will choose the most efficient mechanism for getting their research into public hands. If the best way of releasing information is through a proprietary journal, then we should use it. This bill seems to give the power to the scientists. Whereas you suggest that the NIH have that power.

]]>
By: Jacob Freeze http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-859 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 11:08:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-859 This is a non-issue for almost everybody in the world, and selling it as “tax dollars paying for the same thing twice” merely panders to the public’s anti-tax idiocy. Americans pay less in the way of taxes than citizens of any other developed nation, and (surprise!) also enjoy less in the way of public services and suffer from the absence of anything that could reasonably be described as a “social safety net.” So now there’s yet another example of “wasted tax dollars,” and it’s a pathetic example at a moment when $9.7 trillion has been committed to cover the losses of failing banks.

]]>
By: Josh http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-858 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:15:10 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-858 This is a great post. Thank you for bringing it to people’s attention.

It’s not commonly remarked upon, but the current open-access journals require authors to pay fairly hefty fees. NIH, I believe, has started paying the publishing costs for work they funded. Does this bill eliminate that as well?

Again, since the publishing costs are pretty serious, this could have a significant effect.

]]>
By: John Hunter http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-857 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:54:32 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-857 Thanks for another great post. We need to keep the pressure on those congressman that are not totally bought and paid for so they don’t let their colleagues sell out science for their donors.

]]>
By: Steve Baba http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-856 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:41:28 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-856 “The insanity in this proposal is “

I was thinking it’s insane to think the other side is insane,
but then I would be doing it.

Perhaps, it’s stupid to think the other side is insane.

]]>
By: Jonathan http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-855 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:24:23 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-855 This is indeed a very serious problem, only gaining more ground since the bill has been introduced. I addressed open-access publishing as related to scientific researchers on my blog a few months back after a story I read on Ars Technica. The problem I worry about is that the people to whom this matters won’t realize it until it’s too late. It’s sad to see that a congressman can be bought like this. When our tax dollars are funding this research, I don’t see how it can even be argued that open access should not be required!

]]>
By: john de herrera http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-854 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:23:03 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-854 this is yet another symptom. the problem is the manner in which the legislative branch operates, i.e. the dependence of politicians for campaign funds. blaa, blaa, blaa–anyone with half a brain knows this.

i do not think change can or will occur from the inside, nor do i think the founders thought so either–thus the convention clause. if we achieve the goal of coercing congress to obey our high law, folks like lessig would end up as delegates to a national convention, where they would build consensus between what needs to be fixed, and what could possibly garner the approval of 38 states for ratification.

this group: http://www.foavc.org has placed all the state applications from the senate and house records on pdf files. in case anyone did not know, we are currently mandated by our supreme law to convoke a national convention.

]]>
By: Michael F. Martin http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-853 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:51:48 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-853 Not surprisingly, perhaps, Conyers is also reintroducing a patent reform bill today that is highly unfavorable to independent inventors and smaller entities.

Authors and inventors should stick together this year.

]]>
By: Hans http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-852 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:23:47 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-852 What amazes me most is how cheap this lobbying is. Conyers got $ 9,000, the committee as whole $ 110,950. If the bill is passed, this would imply a huge return on investment.

]]>
By: tom http://www.lessig.org/2009/03/john-conyers-and-open-access/#comment-851 Tue, 03 Mar 2009 13:12:53 +0000 http://lessig.org/blog/2009/03/john_conyers_and_open_access.html#comment-851 Endless thanks and love for finally removing that annoying popup! Now I can read the great posts in their entirety.

]]>