Heidelberger Appell und die Seriosität der Wissenschaften! Mon, May 4. 2009
1. Ein Satz als Vorbemerkung
2. eine Analyse von Stevan Harnad, Univ. Southampton, UK
3. Spott zum Schluss
Ein Satz als Vorbemerkung
In einem Heidelberger Appell (nomen est omen) [siehe [1],...[6]) haben Roland Reuß und der kleine Verleger (von einigen geisteswissenschaftlichen Texten und zu Gartengeräten) Ulmer in der Sprache eines Pamphletes (also überspitzt, wider besseres Wissen zum Ziele einer Aussage argumentierend, populistisch, verschiedene Themen unzulässig vermengend, da unverstanden nehmen wir einmal an) unter anderem behauptet, alle Wissenschaftsorganisationen, von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft sowie die Max Planck Gesellschaft, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Wissenschaftsrat, Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Helmholtz-Gesellschaft, usf., (letztere zusammengeschlossen in der Allianz der Wissenschaften [7]), sowie dem Aktionsbündnis Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft, dessen Göttinger Erklärung für ein liberales Urheberrecht u.a. 366 Fachgesellschaften, Institute, wissenschaftliche Institute sowie über 7.000 Persönlichkeiten aus der Wissenschaft unterzeichnet haben, bis hin zur Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results mit seinen 27.000 Unterzeichnern aus der Wissenschaft aus ganz Europa, alle diese also würden gegen die 'Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre' arbeiten, obgleich sie doch nur fordern, dass von wissenschaftlichen Werken, egal von wem sie wo, wann und bei wem publiziert werden, jedenfalls, soweit sie mit staatlichen Mitteln unterstützt wurden, eine digitale Kopie auf einem Institutionellen Server (der Arbeitsgruppe des Autors, seinem Institut, Universität oder einem zentralen preprint server) offengelegt werden sollen, open access genannt, damit der Inhalt weltweit allen Forschern zugänglich ist, und nicht nur den wenigen, deren Universität die entsprechende teure Zeitschrift noch abonniert hat, in einem Bemühen also, den Auftrag zu forschen und die Ergebnisse offenzulegen, also den Fortschritt der Wissenschaft, die Freiheit, die Gemeinfreiheit von Wissenchaft zu fördern, auch dem Versuch der eingeschränkten Sichtbarkeit, der möglichen Geheimhaltung, zu entgegenzuwirken.
Analyse von Stevan Harnad
[citations from the Pamphlet are in italic. Eine Übersetzung findet sich im weblog des IB der HUBerlin]
Currently the fundamental right of authors vouched for in the constitution to publish freely and of their own volition is under considerable attack and sustained threat.
This blanket statement about authors in general completely conflates (1) legitimate worries about consumer piracy of authors' non-giveaway writings (such as books written for royalty) with (2) the author give-away of peer-reviewed research journal articles, which is what the Open Access movement is about.
Nor are authors' rights to publish whatever they wish, wherever they wish, in any way under attack, or at issue.
At the international level, intellectual property is being stolen from its producers to an unimagined degree and without criminalisation through the illegal publication of works protected by German copyright law on platforms such as GoogleBooks and YouTube.
This refers to consumer piracy of authors' non-give-away writings, a subject of legitimate concern, but completely unrelated to the movement for Open Access to researchers give-away journal articles.
At national level, the so-called Alliance of German Scientific Organisations (members: Wissenschaftsrat, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Leibniz-Gesellschaft, Max Planck-Institute etc.) is propagandising for wide-ranging interference with the freedom of the press and the freedom to publish, the consequences of which are contrary to the basic law.
This refers to the efforts by these institutions to make peer-reviewed research journal articles Open Access -- freely accessible online -- so that they can be read, used, applied and cited by all would-be users and not just by those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which they were published. This is all author give-away writing, for which the author does not seek or get (and never has sought or gotten) a penny of royalty from sales revenue; the author seeks only maximal uptake and impact. Freedom of the press and freedom to publish are in no respect at issue here.
Authors and publishers reject all attempts to, and practices that, undermine copyright. That copyright is fundamental for literature, art and science, for the basic right to freedom of research and teaching, as well as for press freedom and the freedom to publish. In the future too, it must be writers, artists, scientists, in brief, all creative people themselves, who decide if and where their works should be published. Any constraint or coercion to publish in a certain form is as unacceptable as the political toleration of pirate copies, currently being produced in huge numbers by Google.
Authors are free to publish whatever they wish, wherever they wish. And no one is undermining copyright, particularly for non-give-away, royalty-seeking work (such as most books, and journalists fee-based articles), where the author's copyright penalizes piracy.
But not all authors seek to sell their writing for royalty or fees. The 2.5 million articles a year published in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals (in all disciplines, countries and languages) are all creator give-aways, written solely for uptake and usage in further research. Their authors want copyright to protect their authorship and integrity of their texts (e.g., from plagiarism or alteration), but they want to give away their texts free online so that all would-be users can access and use them.
There is no constraint whatsoever on these give-away authors: They are not royalty-seeking book-authors, fee-based journalists, or other creators of digital works for sale.
The funders of the research (including the tax-paying public whose money is being used to pay for the conduct of the research) and the employers of the researchers (mostly universities, who pay their salaries) also share these give-away author's interest in maximizing the access and usage of their joint research output. 'Publish or Perish' reflects the longstanding academic mandate (long predating the digital era) for scholars and scientists to conduct research and make public their findings, so they can be used and built upon, by other scholars and scientists, to the benefit of all, in the collective, cumulative growth of learned inquiry. These authors are already rewarded, in their careers and their research support, for their research productivity as well as for the uptake and impact of their research findings. Open Access maximizes these.
It is for this reason that in the online era research funders and universities the world over -- but not yet in Germany -- are beginning to adopt policies that mandate that researchers provide Open Access to their (give-away) peer-reviewed research articles (not their [non-give-away] books!) by self-archiving them, free for all, on the web.
These Open Access mandates are needed not to force authors to give away their articles (they do that already, more than willingly) but to reinforce their inclination to make their give-away freely accessible to all on the web.
This inclination needs reinforcement because some authors imagine it is illegal for them to make their articles freely accessible online, others imagine their journals will not allow it, and still others imagine it entails a lot of work. The mandates formalize the fact that providing Open Access is legal, that at least 63% of journals already formally endorse authors making their articles Open Access immediately upon publication, and another 34% endorse it after a temporary embargo period (during which automatized email eprint requests can take care of immediate research usage needs) and that it takes only a few minutes to self-archive an article.
Dr. Reuß presumably knows all this, because he already self-archives his give-away articles to make them Open Access on the web too. He simply has not put two and two together, because he has conflated Open Access policies with google book-scanning and has not taken the trouble to do the research that would have made him realize that they are completely different things. Instead, he drafts this incoherent petition to treat both Open Access and google copyright issues as if they were the same sort of thing.
In contrast, international surveys of authors in all disciplines (humanities included) have repeatedly confirmed that 95% of authors would make their give-away journal articles OA (over 80% of them willingly) if their universities and/or funders were to mandate it. They need the mandates to give them the confidence and initiative to do it. And an appeal to the EC vastly larger than the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by tens of thousands of researchers and their institutions petitioning the EC to mandate OA!
Never in history has the number of publications, books, magazines and electronic publications been as large as it is today, and never has the freedom of decision of authors been guaranteed to such a high degree. The 'Alliance of German Scientific Organisations' wants to obligate authors to use a specified mode of publication. This is not conducive to the improvement of scientific information.
The 'mode of publication' is simply the mode of publication authors already use - publishing in the peer-reviewed journal of their choice - augmented by making the published article Open Access.
(In fairness, it must also be noted that there is some confusion among Open Access proponents too, about how they are advocating that articles be made Open Access. The 'Green Road' to Open Access is for authors to publish their article in the traditional journal of their choice, and then to make their peer-reviewed, accepted final draft freely accessible online, by self-archiving it in their institution's Open Access repository. The 'Gold Road' to Open Access is for authors to publish their article in an Open Access journal, which is a journal that makes all of its articles up to the author. So what is being advocated is not a -mode of publication,- but a mode of access-provision - having published the article when and where the author chooses.)
No one is proposing to constrain in any way authors' choice in what to publish, when, where or how. Open Access mandates are concerned only with modes of maximizing access to the chosen mode of publication (and only for give-away peer-reviewed research articles).
The undersigned appeal emphatically to the Federal Government and to the governments of the federal states for a resolute defence, with all the means at their disposal, of existing copyright and of the freedom to publish, to research and to teach. Politicians have the obligation to enforce, at national and international level, the individual rights and aspirations linked with the production of artistic and scientific works. The freedom of literature, art and science is a major constitutional asset. If we loose it, we loose our future.
Open Access is completely compatible with existing copyright. All it requires is that publishers should not try to deprive give-away authors of the right to make their give-away articles freely accessible online by self-archiving them, as Herr Reuß does. Why then is Herr Reuß petitioning against this author's right under the confused banner of defending authors' rights and freedom?
Spott zum Schluss
R. Reuß selbst ist ein Hauptakteur des Heidelberger Pamphlets und sieht das Open Access stellen einer digitalen Kopie seiner Werke mit seiner eigenen Unterschrift als 'Angriff auf die Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre'. Daher verlinkt er natürlich auf seiner Homepage nicht zu Open Access Kopien (mit wenigen Ausnahmen).
So erscheint einem die Welt, wenn man, wie einst der Käfer Kafka's auf dem Rücken liegt.
Aber als ernsthafter Forscher vor allem zu Kafka, hat er natürlich den Wert von Open Access seiner eigenen Werke genutzt, um eine möglichst breite Leserschar zu erreichen für seine kostenpflichtigen gedruckten Werke. Die online kostenlosen Volltexte (Open Acces; sic!) finden sich prominent auf seinem eigenen Instituts-Server. So sieht die Welt aus, wenn man auf seinen Beinen steht.
[1] Klaus Graf:
Heidelberger Schwachsinn: Welche Dinosaurier regieren uns eigentlich? ;
[2] Armin Medosch:
"Die Zeit" und die "intellektuelle Finsternis";
[3]
Open Access und Urheberrecht: Kein Eingriff in die Publikationsfreiheit
Gemeinsame Erklärung der Wissenschaftsorganisationen
; Pressemeldung der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz HRK Berlin, 25.3.2009;
[4] Was ist uns Wissenschafts- und Publikationsfreiheit wert? Verlieren wir den Gedanken der Sozialpflichtigkeit von Wissen, verlieren wir unsere Zukunft;
Presseerklärung 1/09; 25.3.2009; Aktionsbündnis Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft; sowie eine Presse-Erklärung zum Heidelberger Pamphlet:
Für ein vorwärts, nicht rückwärts gerichtetes Urheberrecht;
[5] Eine Vielzahl der Werke von Roland Reuß stellt der Autor auf dem Web-Server seines Institutes Open Access online.Diese Werke können als Druck dort direkt bestellt werden. Open Access in seiner reinsten Form (green way);
[6] Sammlung der Pamphletalia die vom ITK Institut für Textkritik e.V. (gemeinnützig!) bisher herausgegeben wurden.
[7]Übersicht: Positionen zu Open Access in Deutschland (in Auswahl); Heinz Pampel; in www.wisspub.net und als Blog in Open Access; Blog
[8] Einige weitere Reaktionen: Perlentaucher;
sowie Stuttgarter Zeitung;
[9] Rede der Bundesjustizministerin Zypries;
2. eine Analyse von Stevan Harnad, Univ. Southampton, UK
3. Spott zum Schluss
Ein Satz als Vorbemerkung
In einem Heidelberger Appell (nomen est omen) [siehe [1],...[6]) haben Roland Reuß und der kleine Verleger (von einigen geisteswissenschaftlichen Texten und zu Gartengeräten) Ulmer in der Sprache eines Pamphletes (also überspitzt, wider besseres Wissen zum Ziele einer Aussage argumentierend, populistisch, verschiedene Themen unzulässig vermengend, da unverstanden nehmen wir einmal an) unter anderem behauptet, alle Wissenschaftsorganisationen, von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft sowie die Max Planck Gesellschaft, Fraunhofer Gesellschaft, Wissenschaftsrat, Hochschulrektorenkonferenz, Helmholtz-Gesellschaft, usf., (letztere zusammengeschlossen in der Allianz der Wissenschaften [7]), sowie dem Aktionsbündnis Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft, dessen Göttinger Erklärung für ein liberales Urheberrecht u.a. 366 Fachgesellschaften, Institute, wissenschaftliche Institute sowie über 7.000 Persönlichkeiten aus der Wissenschaft unterzeichnet haben, bis hin zur Petition for guaranteed public access to publicly-funded research results mit seinen 27.000 Unterzeichnern aus der Wissenschaft aus ganz Europa, alle diese also würden gegen die 'Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre' arbeiten, obgleich sie doch nur fordern, dass von wissenschaftlichen Werken, egal von wem sie wo, wann und bei wem publiziert werden, jedenfalls, soweit sie mit staatlichen Mitteln unterstützt wurden, eine digitale Kopie auf einem Institutionellen Server (der Arbeitsgruppe des Autors, seinem Institut, Universität oder einem zentralen preprint server) offengelegt werden sollen, open access genannt, damit der Inhalt weltweit allen Forschern zugänglich ist, und nicht nur den wenigen, deren Universität die entsprechende teure Zeitschrift noch abonniert hat, in einem Bemühen also, den Auftrag zu forschen und die Ergebnisse offenzulegen, also den Fortschritt der Wissenschaft, die Freiheit, die Gemeinfreiheit von Wissenchaft zu fördern, auch dem Versuch der eingeschränkten Sichtbarkeit, der möglichen Geheimhaltung, zu entgegenzuwirken.
Analyse von Stevan Harnad
[citations from the Pamphlet are in italic. Eine Übersetzung findet sich im weblog des IB der HUBerlin]
Currently the fundamental right of authors vouched for in the constitution to publish freely and of their own volition is under considerable attack and sustained threat.
This blanket statement about authors in general completely conflates (1) legitimate worries about consumer piracy of authors' non-giveaway writings (such as books written for royalty) with (2) the author give-away of peer-reviewed research journal articles, which is what the Open Access movement is about.
Nor are authors' rights to publish whatever they wish, wherever they wish, in any way under attack, or at issue.
At the international level, intellectual property is being stolen from its producers to an unimagined degree and without criminalisation through the illegal publication of works protected by German copyright law on platforms such as GoogleBooks and YouTube.
This refers to consumer piracy of authors' non-give-away writings, a subject of legitimate concern, but completely unrelated to the movement for Open Access to researchers give-away journal articles.
At national level, the so-called Alliance of German Scientific Organisations (members: Wissenschaftsrat, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Leibniz-Gesellschaft, Max Planck-Institute etc.) is propagandising for wide-ranging interference with the freedom of the press and the freedom to publish, the consequences of which are contrary to the basic law.
This refers to the efforts by these institutions to make peer-reviewed research journal articles Open Access -- freely accessible online -- so that they can be read, used, applied and cited by all would-be users and not just by those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journal in which they were published. This is all author give-away writing, for which the author does not seek or get (and never has sought or gotten) a penny of royalty from sales revenue; the author seeks only maximal uptake and impact. Freedom of the press and freedom to publish are in no respect at issue here.
Authors and publishers reject all attempts to, and practices that, undermine copyright. That copyright is fundamental for literature, art and science, for the basic right to freedom of research and teaching, as well as for press freedom and the freedom to publish. In the future too, it must be writers, artists, scientists, in brief, all creative people themselves, who decide if and where their works should be published. Any constraint or coercion to publish in a certain form is as unacceptable as the political toleration of pirate copies, currently being produced in huge numbers by Google.
Authors are free to publish whatever they wish, wherever they wish. And no one is undermining copyright, particularly for non-give-away, royalty-seeking work (such as most books, and journalists fee-based articles), where the author's copyright penalizes piracy.
But not all authors seek to sell their writing for royalty or fees. The 2.5 million articles a year published in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed research journals (in all disciplines, countries and languages) are all creator give-aways, written solely for uptake and usage in further research. Their authors want copyright to protect their authorship and integrity of their texts (e.g., from plagiarism or alteration), but they want to give away their texts free online so that all would-be users can access and use them.
There is no constraint whatsoever on these give-away authors: They are not royalty-seeking book-authors, fee-based journalists, or other creators of digital works for sale.
The funders of the research (including the tax-paying public whose money is being used to pay for the conduct of the research) and the employers of the researchers (mostly universities, who pay their salaries) also share these give-away author's interest in maximizing the access and usage of their joint research output. 'Publish or Perish' reflects the longstanding academic mandate (long predating the digital era) for scholars and scientists to conduct research and make public their findings, so they can be used and built upon, by other scholars and scientists, to the benefit of all, in the collective, cumulative growth of learned inquiry. These authors are already rewarded, in their careers and their research support, for their research productivity as well as for the uptake and impact of their research findings. Open Access maximizes these.
It is for this reason that in the online era research funders and universities the world over -- but not yet in Germany -- are beginning to adopt policies that mandate that researchers provide Open Access to their (give-away) peer-reviewed research articles (not their [non-give-away] books!) by self-archiving them, free for all, on the web.
These Open Access mandates are needed not to force authors to give away their articles (they do that already, more than willingly) but to reinforce their inclination to make their give-away freely accessible to all on the web.
This inclination needs reinforcement because some authors imagine it is illegal for them to make their articles freely accessible online, others imagine their journals will not allow it, and still others imagine it entails a lot of work. The mandates formalize the fact that providing Open Access is legal, that at least 63% of journals already formally endorse authors making their articles Open Access immediately upon publication, and another 34% endorse it after a temporary embargo period (during which automatized email eprint requests can take care of immediate research usage needs) and that it takes only a few minutes to self-archive an article.
Dr. Reuß presumably knows all this, because he already self-archives his give-away articles to make them Open Access on the web too. He simply has not put two and two together, because he has conflated Open Access policies with google book-scanning and has not taken the trouble to do the research that would have made him realize that they are completely different things. Instead, he drafts this incoherent petition to treat both Open Access and google copyright issues as if they were the same sort of thing.
In contrast, international surveys of authors in all disciplines (humanities included) have repeatedly confirmed that 95% of authors would make their give-away journal articles OA (over 80% of them willingly) if their universities and/or funders were to mandate it. They need the mandates to give them the confidence and initiative to do it. And an appeal to the EC vastly larger than the Heidelberg Appeal has been signed by tens of thousands of researchers and their institutions petitioning the EC to mandate OA!
Never in history has the number of publications, books, magazines and electronic publications been as large as it is today, and never has the freedom of decision of authors been guaranteed to such a high degree. The 'Alliance of German Scientific Organisations' wants to obligate authors to use a specified mode of publication. This is not conducive to the improvement of scientific information.
The 'mode of publication' is simply the mode of publication authors already use - publishing in the peer-reviewed journal of their choice - augmented by making the published article Open Access.
(In fairness, it must also be noted that there is some confusion among Open Access proponents too, about how they are advocating that articles be made Open Access. The 'Green Road' to Open Access is for authors to publish their article in the traditional journal of their choice, and then to make their peer-reviewed, accepted final draft freely accessible online, by self-archiving it in their institution's Open Access repository. The 'Gold Road' to Open Access is for authors to publish their article in an Open Access journal, which is a journal that makes all of its articles up to the author. So what is being advocated is not a -mode of publication,- but a mode of access-provision - having published the article when and where the author chooses.)
No one is proposing to constrain in any way authors' choice in what to publish, when, where or how. Open Access mandates are concerned only with modes of maximizing access to the chosen mode of publication (and only for give-away peer-reviewed research articles).
The undersigned appeal emphatically to the Federal Government and to the governments of the federal states for a resolute defence, with all the means at their disposal, of existing copyright and of the freedom to publish, to research and to teach. Politicians have the obligation to enforce, at national and international level, the individual rights and aspirations linked with the production of artistic and scientific works. The freedom of literature, art and science is a major constitutional asset. If we loose it, we loose our future.
Open Access is completely compatible with existing copyright. All it requires is that publishers should not try to deprive give-away authors of the right to make their give-away articles freely accessible online by self-archiving them, as Herr Reuß does. Why then is Herr Reuß petitioning against this author's right under the confused banner of defending authors' rights and freedom?
Spott zum Schluss
R. Reuß selbst ist ein Hauptakteur des Heidelberger Pamphlets und sieht das Open Access stellen einer digitalen Kopie seiner Werke mit seiner eigenen Unterschrift als 'Angriff auf die Freiheit von Forschung und Lehre'. Daher verlinkt er natürlich auf seiner Homepage nicht zu Open Access Kopien (mit wenigen Ausnahmen).
So erscheint einem die Welt, wenn man, wie einst der Käfer Kafka's auf dem Rücken liegt.
Aber als ernsthafter Forscher vor allem zu Kafka, hat er natürlich den Wert von Open Access seiner eigenen Werke genutzt, um eine möglichst breite Leserschar zu erreichen für seine kostenpflichtigen gedruckten Werke. Die online kostenlosen Volltexte (Open Acces; sic!) finden sich prominent auf seinem eigenen Instituts-Server. So sieht die Welt aus, wenn man auf seinen Beinen steht.
[1] Klaus Graf:
Heidelberger Schwachsinn: Welche Dinosaurier regieren uns eigentlich? ;
[2] Armin Medosch:
"Die Zeit" und die "intellektuelle Finsternis";
[3]
Open Access und Urheberrecht: Kein Eingriff in die Publikationsfreiheit
Gemeinsame Erklärung der Wissenschaftsorganisationen
; Pressemeldung der Hochschulrektorenkonferenz HRK Berlin, 25.3.2009;
[4] Was ist uns Wissenschafts- und Publikationsfreiheit wert? Verlieren wir den Gedanken der Sozialpflichtigkeit von Wissen, verlieren wir unsere Zukunft;
Presseerklärung 1/09; 25.3.2009; Aktionsbündnis Urheberrecht für Bildung und Wissenschaft; sowie eine Presse-Erklärung zum Heidelberger Pamphlet:
Für ein vorwärts, nicht rückwärts gerichtetes Urheberrecht;
[5] Eine Vielzahl der Werke von Roland Reuß stellt der Autor auf dem Web-Server seines Institutes Open Access online.Diese Werke können als Druck dort direkt bestellt werden. Open Access in seiner reinsten Form (green way);
[6] Sammlung der Pamphletalia die vom ITK Institut für Textkritik e.V. (gemeinnützig!) bisher herausgegeben wurden.
[7]Übersicht: Positionen zu Open Access in Deutschland (in Auswahl); Heinz Pampel; in www.wisspub.net und als Blog in Open Access; Blog
[8] Einige weitere Reaktionen: Perlentaucher;
sowie Stuttgarter Zeitung;
[9] Rede der Bundesjustizministerin Zypries;
Posted by Eberhard R. Hilf
in OA und Verlage Comments: (2)
Trackbacks: (0)
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
View as PDF: This entry | This month | Full blog
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
#1 - Heinz Pampel said:
2009-05-07 20:18 - (Reply)
Eine Übersetzung findet sich unter:
http://weblog.ib.hu-berlin.de/?p=6906
Interessant ist auch die Pressemitteilung von Kulturstaatsminister Bernd Neumann:
"Außerdem muss bedacht werden, dass Bücher, sonstige Kulturgüter und wissenschaftliche Daten abgesehen von der urheberrechtlichen Relevanz Teil der kulturellen Identität einer Nation und damit genuin öffentliche Güter sind."
Quelle: Naumann PM
#2 - Hans-Werner Hilse 2009-05-07 23:22 - (Reply)
Das vorbehaltlos gewährte Grundrecht der Wissenschaftsfreiheit ist natürlich auch - so würde ich zu demselben Schluß gelangen wie Naumann - eben mit dem Ziel einer funktionierenden, d.h. auch intensiv kommunizierenden, Wissenschaft formuliert, richtet sich also gegen Restriktionen.
Man muss gar fragen, ob nicht sogar eher die Gewährung von exklusiven Verwertungsrechten diesem Grundrecht widerspricht denn der ausgedehnte Schutz. Denn hier ist der Wissenschaftler gar nicht als Wissenschaftler betroffen - der vielmehr das Anliegen hat, Forschung transparent zu machen und auf transparente Forschung anderer zuzugreifen, sondern er ist vielmehr "bloß" in seiner Rolle als Urheber betroffen. Den Eingriff in die Wissenschaftsfreiheit würde ich dann annehmen, wenn es auf die Wissenschaft des Betroffenen negative Auswirkungen hat (die einen Eingriff ausmachen müssten), dass eine Fassung eben via Open Access verfügbar ist.
Von einem Recht der Öffentlichkeit auf die Veröffentlichung Open Access würde ich nicht sprechen. Das wäre erst noch zu schaffen. Aber es gibt einen legitimen Anspruch. Und den zu Recht zu machen greift ganz sicher nicht in die Freiheit der Wissenschaft ein. Dann schon eher in das Eigentum und die Persönlichkeitsrechte. Die sind aber nicht wirklich ganz so schrankenlos wie die Wissenschaft.
