[Open-access] Hitler, Mother Teresa, and Coke

Tue Nov 6 12:31:54 UTC 2012

On 6 November 2012 03:32, Eric F. Van de Velde
<eric.f.vandevelde at gmail.com> wrote:
> Publishers are manipulative capitalists who extort academia by holding
> hostage the research papers they stole from helpless scholars on a mission
> to save the world. This Hitler vs. Mother Teresa narrative is widespread in
> academic circles. Some versions are nearly as shrill as this one. Others are
> toned-down and carry scholarly authority. All versions are just plain wrong.
>
> To see how this ends, go to
> http://scitechsociety.blogspot.com/2012/11/hitler-mother-teresa-and-coke.html

As I wrote on the LSE Impact blog back in March:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/03/26/visibility-scarcity-cant-serve-two-masters/

"And let’s say it once more: for-profit publishers can’t exactly be
blamed for this. It’s the nature of the beast. Remember, directors are
required to act in the financial interests of the corporation. It has
narrow, focussed concerns. I am reminded of Captain Quint’s
description of a shark in Jaws: “what we are dealing with here is a
perfect engine…  All this machine does is swim and eat and make little
sharks.” It does what it does; and it does it with perfect
single-mindedness.

And that is why talk of such publishers being “evil” is really
misplaced. They do what they do. It would be more accurate to call
them “blind” or “unthinking”. When they fight tooth and nail to
prevent open access, they are no more being evil than a shark is when
it attacks its prey; no more evil than a brick wall across a motorway.

But here’s the thing. If a shark threatens people, then it has to be
destroyed. A wall across a motorway has to be demolished. And publicly
funded research has to be made publicly available. It isn’t necessary
that we morally condemn a publisher that gets in the way of that
self-evidently just goal. But it is necessary to get it out of the
way. To demolish it, if it won’t move."

-- Mike.