> But money spent on 'gold' OA is not 'removed' from
research,
> particularly not if you understand and accept that
formally
> publishing the results is integral to doing research.
That's a political argument -- a "should" argument
-- rather than
a statement of fact. This is a statement of fact: it costs
a
certain amount of money to create information by performing
research, and it is entirely possible (whether or not
desirable)
to do research and then publish nothing. If you choose to
publish the results of your research, additional costs will
be
involved. There are many granting agencies that have
traditionally provided money to support the creation of
information through research, but not the formal publication
or
distribution of it. There may be good arguments for having
those
granting agencies start funding the second part as well --
but
there's no way for them to do so without redirecting money
from
their support of actual research. A good argument, it seems
to
me, would need to demonstrate that the general welfare is
better
served by the free distribution of less information than it
is by
the creation of more information.
By the way, I'm happy to keep rephrasing this basic point as
many
times as it takes. 
---
Rick Anderson
Dir. of Resource Acquisition
University of Nevada, Reno Libraries
rickand unr.edu
|
