The academic world in the Netherlands is abuzz with the government and the Association of Universities in the Netherlands’ (VSNU) firm position in negotiations with Elsevier. The push to open up academic literature to become freely accessible and reusable online, which is usually recognized under the umbrella term of Open Access, has become quite real for quite a few scholars. And some of them really don’t like it. What does Open Access mean for history of science, and the humanities in general? I decided to answer the call of Hans Schouwenburg and Pim Martens for ‘scientivistic’ engagement, and to write a short piece on this question – with quite a different position than Ad Maas’s last post on this on Shells & Pebbles. It is based on many of the talks heard at the symposium Rushing to Revolution: Open Access Models for Humanities Journals held at Utrecht University, and OpenCon 2014 organized by the Right to Research Coalition in Washington D.C. Laying somewhere in between a conference report and an opinion piece, I aim to give you some food for thought on what to do with the movement for the ‘open’ in the humanities.
By Ivan Flis
Every scientific discipline has its famous experiments. The case is no different for psychology. In the company of famous psychological experiments, one study is often mentioned as the fulcrum of the behaviorist revolution of American psychology – the story of a little boy named Albert and the attempt to teach him fear.