4 ms·
Exactly. Research articles are produced with public money, and scientists do not profit financially from their sale, in fact both scientists and the public want
by a3_nm 10y ago
Exactly. Research articles are produced with public money, and scientists do not profit financially from their sale, in fact both scientists and the public want scientific articles to be as widely circulated as possible.
It then seems completely backwards to use intellectual property to limit "unauthorized" redistribution of articles, in the hope that this would help the "authorized" publisher to circulate the articles...
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoIt's worse than that. The sole contribution of the "publishers" is to make content hard to access - both practically, because you need a university library or a private login, and financially, because either your library has to pay a lot of money, or you do. ($45 for a three page PDF? Please...) While some people try to conflate this with other kinds of IP, this is a completely different process, because research already funded by public money is being kept from the public. Which means anyone who may be interested in research outside of academia - including startups, corporations, and private entrepreneurs - has to pay through the nose for official access. And that simply removes money from the ecosystem and puts it in the pocket of the publishers. It doesn't fund new research, it doesn't increase publishing standards, it doesn't keep food on the table for struggling researchers. It costs a fortune, but adds no social or scientific value at all.