[Foundation-l] Black market science

[Andrew Gray]

On 19 July 2011 21:48, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 July 2011 21:07, Nathan <nawrich at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Vaguely related:
>> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/reddit-co-founder-charged-with-data-theft
>> Aaron Swartz charged by federal prosecutors with illegally downloading
>> over 4 million journal articles from JSTOR, with the intent to
>> redistribute them via file-sharing networks.
>
> Closely related. I don't believe any detail of JSTOR's denials of
> involvement whatsoever. They're increasingly becoming a problem that
> needs dealing with.

Demand Progress seem to be fairly clear that JSTOR were not the
driving force behind the prosecution, and I'd hope they'd know!

http://demandprogress.org/aaron

"...JSTOR has settled any claims against Aaron, explained they’ve
suffered no loss or damage, and asked the government not to
prosecute."

(I have always vaguely wondered how many cases like this there are - a
slapped wrist and request not to do it again by the publishers. You'd
think there'd be a couple of dozen cases every year, though I guess by
their nature it's quite discreet.)

But in more general terms, why do you specifically feel JSTOR are a
problem needing dealt with? They do a lot of things right with their
repository that more conventional academic publishers often do badly,
in my experience. (In no particular order: retroactive access for
withdrawn journals; on-site access; corpus research data; subsidised
access in the developing world; transparent pricing; etc, etc.)

The basic issue of gated access to scholarly research, yes, that's an
issue. But it's a pretty fundamental issue to the sector - it's tied
up with the whole business model of how we publish academic work - not
a quirk of this one organisation for which they specifically need
punished. Are there some particularly egregious bits of past behaviour
I've missed?

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk