Delete comment from: RRResearch
I also think the commercial reuse is quite obvious. Moreover, I wonder how much this publisher is really going to make, charging for content that's available for free.
If the publisher picked articles they thought were worth collecting and put together a book without the authors actually having to do anything for the additional promotion of their work, why is anybody complaining?
What if the publisher hadn't developed a book but a very effective drug from the authors' research and made a huge profit (presumably way more that this publisher will make)? Would they also complain?
What if big pharma, by accident, got a hold of this book and they read this article they never would have discovered otherwise, just by chance, and got the idea for a fantastic drug and made a fortune, would they also complain?
Maybe I'm missing some important part of the story, but the authors should be happy and glad their research was selected, not concerned. If these authors wanted to make sure their work isn't being read or re-used, why publish it in the first place?
I thought the politicians always said publicly funded research is good for the economy. Now researchers complain if their work directly benefits the economy? There is something major here that I don't understand.
Jul 21, 2013, 2:27:10 PM
Posted to When is it ethical to re-publish open-access scholarly articles?