[open-science] Publishing and copyright licences: academics opt to keep control | News | Times Higher Education

Heather Morrison hgmorris at sfu.ca
Mon Apr 8 18:20:24 UTC 2013


I am not suggesting muzzling any studies. You might note that I'm writing a series of blogposts on the Taylor & Francis survey, here:

The basic principle of the need for independent inquiry remains. I have no doubt that the corporate sector is best qualified to conduct market research to determine how to best serve their customers and maximize their profits. We can completely trust Google with research on how to make the most profits for Google - they're obviously very good at this. However, research about public policies that could impact Google is best handled by a researcher who does not report to Google.

A few posts back, I asked if you could tell us a bit about who you are and what your interest in this discussion is. Do you work for a publishing company, hold stock in a publishing company, etc.?  If you're not at liberty to provide exact details, some general information would be helpful. To properly interpret what someone says, it is important to know who they are.

Dr. Heather Morrison
Professional librarian & academic (adjunct  - library & information studies / sessional - communication)
The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics 

On 2013-04-06, at 2:24 PM, Tom Morris wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Heather Morrison <hgmorris at sfu.ca> wrote:
> Perhaps these examples will help non-academics to understand:
> If we want good research done on the public's perception of the performance of banks with respect to the 2008 fiscal crisis, who should conduct the research? Academics or government staffers with a primary loyalty to uncovering truth and serving the public, or the banks most responsible for causing the crisis in the first place?
> How about a survey on public perceptions of oil industry performance and the environment? Should British Petroleum, Exxon or Enbridge conduct the survey?
> Wow, both condescension and bad analogies packed into such a brief passage.
> The study didn't involve the "public" in any way, shape or form.  It was a handful of the privileged elite who form a significant segment of Taylor & Francis' customer base.  Not only do they contribute revenue directly through author fees, but they influence the librarians who make subscription purchasing decisions.  Taylor & Francis would be *very* motivated to get an accurate view of the sentiments of this population (whether or not, they'd share the complete view is another story entirely).
> If you want a Jane Q. Public analogy, try digital music.  Who do you think would be more motivated to get an accurate picture of the public's attitudes toward purchasing digital music - an academic researcher or the market researchers at Apple, Google, and the RIAA?
> I'll repeat - the answer to studies that you don't agree with isn't muzzling those studies, but to do your own studies and flood us with better data.  Sitting on the sidelines carping about others isn't going to improve things.
> Tom

More information about the open-science mailing list