3 ms·
Not to defend Elsevier, but 40k/year (entry level salary for one employee), doesn't sound high if it's life saving information...
by thaw13579 11y ago
Not to defend Elsevier, but 40k/year (entry level salary for one employee), doesn't sound high if it's life saving information...
- return0 11y agoit is, if you think that it's not their research, it's catalogued from public research that was given to them for free.
- thaw13579 11y agoIt's a complex topic though. The papers are distinct from the research (and public money), and the authors willfully give publishers the rights to their writing. This is also not "free" but in exchange for prestige for promotions, etc. I don't think this is a good system though, but it's legal. NIH does require open access after one year for publicly funded work, at least, but I think a better solution is to require summary reports submitted directly to NIH for every project.
- return0 11y agoEven better would be to do away with reports and journal articles that only report a tiny fraction experimental data, and focus more on "selling" the science rather than reporting it. I suspect there is a very large overlap in research, thousands of animals are being killed needlessly, simply because the data that is not published in articles is discarded, even though they could be useful for other studies.
- Chinjut 11y ago40k/year sounds quite high for life-saving information. Life-saving information should be free (or, rather, whatever necessary costs it has should be socialized).
- thaw13579 11y agoI think that's a great point--socialization is a solution that should be considered a realistic option. It seems like publishing would have a comparable bureaucratic load to that faced by science funding agencies.