Comment by s1artibartfast
11 days ago
> No, you did that, by responding to my post where I said "should" as though I were trying to describe how things are instead of how they ought to be.
I dont really want to get into a tit for tat, but for clarification, you said several times that the public had paid for the papers. Researchers were not paid to create open access papers. You even said it was criminal that they weren't.
> didn't say that. You need to work on your reading comprehension.
rude...
> Can you give some?
I gave a few. The government may want the technology in production and dont care at all about any public disclosure. all the researchers they care about will have journal access either way.
One I didn't mention is that researchers want the freedom to publish as they choose. The government is happy to trade this away as part of the grant process.
The point I was trying to illustrate is that there is no reason to think open access is a non-negotiable or top priority from the government (or public good) perspective. All things being equal, it is nice to have.
> You said several times that the public had paid for the papers. Researchers were not paid to create open access papers. You even said it was criminal that they weren't.
I had assumed that readers would be able to exercise intelligence and common sense to see that I was describing how things should be, not how they are. Evidently I assumed too much in your case.
> rude...
It is to laugh: you had no problem describing me as "antisocial" and "delusional", and now you're complaining that I am being rude?
I think I'm done here.