deborah: the Library of Congress cataloging numbers for children's literature, technology, and library science (Default)
deborah ([personal profile] deborah) wrote2012-02-09 12:05

resenting government interference, except the form of interference that comes in the form of checks

Elsevier's statement on the Research Works Act:

We are against unwarranted and potentially harmful government laws that could undermine the sustainability of the peer-review publishing system. The RWA’s purpose is simply to ensure that the US government cannot enshrine in law how journal articles or accepted manuscripts are disseminated without involving publishers. We oppose in principle the notion that governments should be able to dictate the terms by which products of private sector investments are distributed, especially if they are to be distributed for free. ...

Governments are simply not in a position to be able to know what is sustainable for individual journals whose dynamics vary significantly. As those who invest to deliver the publications, we believe that we should and must be involved in these decisions particularly when governments seek to distribute for free what we have paid to develop.

That who has paid to develop? I love that the basic principle is that the government is allowed to interfere as long as the interference take the form of paying for all of the research, and for that matter paying the salaries of the people writing the articles. They are absolutely considered to be in a position to know what research should be funded. But apparently they are not in a position to know how the research they've paid for should be disseminated.

Stay classy, Elsevier.