>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>> Joerg wrote:
>>
>> thread drift
>>
>>>> Secondly, the assertion that they do that to "burden the scientist" is
>>>> not a proper fact statement, it is a clear case of judgement and the
>>>> writer had better back that up. I don't see where he did. That lessens
>>>> my interest in a certain piece of writing rather dramatically because
>>>> in my eyes it makes it lose credibility, whether it's an answer to a
>>>> blog or whatever.
>>>
>>> The story Steve McIntyre was finally told was that the raw data belonged
>>> to the intended publisher of Mann's report and was therefore
>>> confidential under copyright legislation !!! ( source Steve McIntyre )
>>>
>>> In other words, a proper peer review was made impossible.
>>>
>>That has deeper implications for data that is owned by businesses
>>who are used as outsources for the work. I've been worrying about this
>>for a long time.
>>
>>/BAH
>
>Hmmph. I had been led to believe that work paid for by public monies was by
>definition public domain. WestLaw last a big lawsuit over that.
Apparently research paid for with public funds actually belongs to a few highly profitable publishers like Elsevier, Springer, Wiley. Their abstracts are deliberately pitched such as to be vague enough that you have to buy a $25 paper just to find out that it's not useful.
I have to resort to subterfuges (like fudging on student IDs) to get at this stuff.
John