This debate risks getting personal. I'd hate to see that occur.
Kind regards,
Craig
Sent from my iPhone
> On 7 May 2016, at 5:35 AM, vasiliy vlassov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Susan,
> did I understand you correctly that you are saying:
> because every body has its means of living (someone paying them an income), just because of this, the fruits of his/her (crowd of them) work may be used by third party for the profit?
> Vasya
>
>> On 2016-05-05 16:45, Susan Fowler wrote:
>> Cochrane is not really free to anyone. In countries where people have
>> "free" access including Australia, they have it because their government
>> pays for it with taxes paid by citizens. Just like how the PubMed
>> interface to the Medline database isn't really "free" since it is paid
>> for with United States citizen tax dollars.Crowd sourcing isn't free
>> either. That crowd is already an elite set of people since they have
>> access to the internet and the hardware necessary to interact. Those
>> people are employed by someone paying them an income or are supported
>> by their government that supports their crowd sourcing contributions.
>>
>> Researchers are welcome to publish their content in reputable open
>> source journals like PLOS and their institutions are happy to make their
>> content digitally available in repositories. In the US, journals
>> publishing reports funded with government money are required to make
>> access to those reports free. We have plenty of avenues for sharing our
>> content. We do not have to give up access and, these days, authors have
>> options to negotiate author agreements with subscription journals to
>> maintain access rights. If you need help figuring all of that out
>> contact a librarian.
>>
>> If you want access to information for "free", it doesn't stop with
>> university libraries, you can access content at your public libraries as
>> well. You can even do it online with a "free" public library account.
>> Even if your public library doesn't subscribe to a particular journal
>> they can get it for you, usually at not cost to you outside of the taxes
>> you have already paid to use the library in the first place.
>>
>> So when people complain about not having free access what are they
>> really complaining about? Because from my point of view, it seems like
>> there a lot of ways to access information for "free". If researchers get
>> paid to conduct research and write articles reporting the results, who
>> do we think pays the publishers to publish that content or the libraries
>> and librarians who work very hard to make access as easy as possible?
>>
>> I don't think Cochrane is aiming to derive financial gains either but
>> Cochrane doesn't just happen. Their are servers, content management,
>> interface design etc... that has to happen and that is not free. Nothing
>> is really free.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Susan Fowler, MLIS
>> Medical Librarian
>> Coordinator, Systematic Review Services
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Vasiliy V. Vlassov, MD
> President, Society for Evidence Based Medicine (osdm.org)
> e-mail: vlassov[a t]cochrane.ru
> snail mail: P.O.Box 13 Moscow 109451 Russia
> Phone Russia +7(965)2511021
>
> Ïîäïèøèñü íà íîâîñòè íà osdm.org
>
> --
> THANK YOU for deleting my e-mail address , any other addresses, and any personal information, from this e-mail, if you plan to forward it. Also, thank you for using “Bcc” instead of “To” and “Cc“ when initiating both individual and group e-mails. These extra actions on your part help to prevent spammers and hackers from obtaining addresses and thus help prevent the proliferation of spam.
|