5 ms·

The problem is that research isn't free. (Free as in free beer)

adrianN 9y ago
No, the problem is that publishers take research that they didn't pay for, ask researchers who they aren't paying either to review it and then and put it behind paywalls.
- chestervonwinch 9y ago
  Of course, researchers don't have their work "taken" by publishers; there are big incentives (via the citation count metric of academia) to provide their work to these publishers. This problem has been hashed out so many times, and I'm so upset that we're still at the status quo (especially since I'm at the end of my graduate student years, and will soon no longer have access to the university's library!)
vbezhenar 9y ago
Research is funded by governments. Governments collect taxes from people. People should have access for research they paid for.
- tertius 9y ago
  And they generally do, in 6 months or so.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Really? How so?
    - tertius 9y ago
      https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-05-022.html https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-05-0...
  - jszymborski 9y ago
    This is the case for a small subsection of articles. More to the point, however, is why in the world should the people who funded the project get delayed access? Things move quickly, and when half a year passes, you hardly have access to cutting-edge research.
    - tertius 9y ago
      > More to the point, however, is why in the world should the people who funded the project get delayed access? Have you actually tried to answer this question yourself?
    - tertius 9y ago
      > Things move quickly, and when half a year passes, you hardly have access to cutting-edge research. Ah yes, things move very quickly in science... You have to keep up with the literature! Define the group of people for who this is actually useful and then show me the subset (within the same population) who do not have access. I.e. American scientists and American research i.e. American funding. You understand that scientists agree to this when they choose to publish in journals like nature? And money is only a part of research. Can the scientists then not decide to go into these agreements? (I don't personally have to agree with these agreements. Impact factor is a cruel overlord).
      - jszymborski 9y ago
        The argument that "most people wouldn't know what to do with papers even if they had access" is what perpetuates it. If discoveries are important enough to report about in the news, they're important enough for me to read the underlying research. My formal training hasn't taught me the first thing about atmospheric sciences or gender studies, but my access to papers has allowed me to explore them. I'm no expert in either field, and I understand half of what I'm reading, but it's information I just can't get in a textbook. There is not a professor, post-doc, or grad student that I know that would not publish in Nature or Cell if it meant that it would mean the brutal murder of an adorable basket of kittens, let alone over open-access. Scientific publishing is a cancer, and the arguments I've listed aren't even the beginning of the problems I have with the industry.
CodesInChaos 9y ago
Neither the authors of papers nor the reviewers get paid from the money earned by selling access to papers.
Iv 9y ago
But the paywall does not pay for research, nor does it pay the peer review. It used to only pay the paper and editing, costs that internet and arxiv have made obsolete.

No, the problem is that publishers take research that they didn't pay for, ask researchers who they aren't paying either to review it and then and put it behind paywalls.

chestervonwinch 9y ago
Of course, researchers don't have their work "taken" by publishers; there are big incentives (via the citation count metric of academia) to provide their work to these publishers. This problem has been hashed out so many times, and I'm so upset that we're still at the status quo (especially since I'm at the end of my graduate student years, and will soon no longer have access to the university's library!)

vbezhenar 9y ago

Research is funded by governments. Governments collect taxes from people. People should have access for research they paid for.

tertius 9y ago
And they generally do, in 6 months or so.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Really? How so?
  - tertius 9y ago
    https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-05-022.html https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-05-0...
- jszymborski 9y ago
  This is the case for a small subsection of articles. More to the point, however, is why in the world should the people who funded the project get delayed access? Things move quickly, and when half a year passes, you hardly have access to cutting-edge research.
  - tertius 9y ago
    > More to the point, however, is why in the world should the people who funded the project get delayed access? Have you actually tried to answer this question yourself?
  - tertius 9y ago
    > Things move quickly, and when half a year passes, you hardly have access to cutting-edge research. Ah yes, things move very quickly in science... You have to keep up with the literature! Define the group of people for who this is actually useful and then show me the subset (within the same population) who do not have access. I.e. American scientists and American research i.e. American funding. You understand that scientists agree to this when they choose to publish in journals like nature? And money is only a part of research. Can the scientists then not decide to go into these agreements? (I don't personally have to agree with these agreements. Impact factor is a cruel overlord).
    - jszymborski 9y ago
      The argument that "most people wouldn't know what to do with papers even if they had access" is what perpetuates it. If discoveries are important enough to report about in the news, they're important enough for me to read the underlying research. My formal training hasn't taught me the first thing about atmospheric sciences or gender studies, but my access to papers has allowed me to explore them. I'm no expert in either field, and I understand half of what I'm reading, but it's information I just can't get in a textbook. There is not a professor, post-doc, or grad student that I know that would not publish in Nature or Cell if it meant that it would mean the brutal murder of an adorable basket of kittens, let alone over open-access. Scientific publishing is a cancer, and the arguments I've listed aren't even the beginning of the problems I have with the industry.

CodesInChaos 9y ago

Neither the authors of papers nor the reviewers get paid from the money earned by selling access to papers.

Iv 9y ago

But the paywall does not pay for research, nor does it pay the peer review. It used to only pay the paper and editing, costs that internet and arxiv have made obsolete.