4 ms·

Its a miscarriage of science and justice, when publicly funded science goes behind a journal paywall. People should be able to access what their taxes funded,

Its a miscarriage of science and justice, when publicly funded science goes behind a journal paywall. People should be able to access what their taxes funded, and increase communication around science. I really agree with this quote from the article. “Access to science is going to be a first-world privilege,” Geltner says. “That’s the opposite of what science is supposed to be about.”

zmk_ 9y ago
In the Netherlands, at least, it will not be allowed for researchers to publish articles in journals that erect paywalls.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Derbasti 9y ago
  I think this was made a European rule: publicly funded research must be made available to the public (without paywalls). There is currently a huge kerfuffle going on in Germany, with most universities canceling their Elsevier subscription because Elsevier doesn't do true open access. As a scientist, I can only thank goodness for Sci Hub. It is so insulting to go through a grueling review, be expected to do reviews myself for free, then pay thousands of dollars for publishing a pdf, and then pay additional thousands of dollars for accessing my peers works. What a mess.
  - betterunix2 9y ago
    The irony is that European universities are one of the reasons we are stuck with the journal publishing model. I have spoken with tenured professors about this, and in general European universities are more concerned with the name of the journal publishing company that publishes the articles a professor has published for things like hiring and granting tenure. The attitude at European schools seems to be that there is a group of companies responsible for maintaining high-quality journals, and that publishing in journals not operated by the incumbents is questionable. As a result, researchers have trouble pursuing alternative publishing models e.g. running journals over the Internet without the likes of Springer/Elsevier/etc. (My own experience is that American schools are too fixated on the names of the journals, but less concerned with the company that publishes the journal. So it would still be pretty tough to break the current model, although not as difficult as it would be with Europe.)
  - Yetanfou 9y ago
    Even those who have licensed access to journals thank goodness for Sci-Hub, at least I do. It is often much easier to feed Sci-Hub a DOI and get the paper after negotiating a simple CAPTCHA than it is to log in through some portal so a cookie gets set which tells Wiley that this user has access to these, but not those journals today (but maybe tomorrow, or not), use their search feature to find the correct volume and then finally find the link which hopefully shows an open lock. In this it is comparable to those copy protection schemes of old which made paying users jump through hoops while the pirates just had smooth sailing all the way. Arrrrrr!
    - posterboy 9y ago
      The DOI should take you directly to the article-page. Sci-Hub works through that mechanism.
zmb_ 9y ago
While I completely agree that current big publisher model is broken (which is why I personally don't submit to or review for the big publishers anymore), I wish people would stop making the above argument because it's not helpful nor particularly strong. First, taxpayers do not get direct benefit from most of the things funded by their taxes, only indirect benefits. E.g., you do not get to fly around in a fighter plane even though you partly paid for one, but they will keep you safe. So it does not follow that publicly funded science should automatically be publicly accessible (although personally I believe it should be). Second, in practice the number of people that can get direct benefit from reading any single research paper is very small. The vast majority of those people are working in institutions that have access to the journals, and those few that are not, can usually get a copy simply by emailing the author. So making the papers open will have a very limited real, practical impact for the readers. Third, if the funding source mandates open access (which many now do), all it means is that a few thousand bucks more per publication go into the pockets of the big publishers as open access fees instead of paying for research. And the institutions are still going to have to buy the same subscription packages to the journals to get access to all the articles. So less public money goes to research, more to the bottom lines of the publishers. The real problem is that the high impact venues are privately owned and run for profit. That is the problem that needs to be fixed. E.g., instead of mandating open access, mandate that the Chairs or PIs getting funding must serve on publication venues run by non-profit professional associations. Or set up publicly owned high quality venues (like universities in many countries) and make serving in their editorial and review boards a part of the duties of publicly funded Chairs. Or reduce the impact weight of for-profit publication venues when evaluating candidates for publicly funded positions. etc. etc.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  First, taxpayers do not get direct benefit from most of the things funded by their taxes, only indirect benefits. E.g., you do not get to fly around in a fighter plane even though you partly paid for one, but they will keep you safe. So it does not follow that publicly funded science should automatically be publicly accessible (although personally I believe it should be). Ridiculous. Unlike giving free rides in F-35s, it doesn't cost anything to let me see the results of a study that my taxes paid for. You have to go out of your way to keep information under wraps. Second, in practice the number of people that can get direct benefit from reading any single research paper is very small. The vast majority of those people are working in institutions that have access to the journals, and those few that are not, can usually get a copy simply by emailing the author. So making the papers open will have a very limited real, practical impact for the readers. You never know when that "limited, real practical impact" will make all the difference. All it takes is the right set of eyes in the right place at the right time. Not your call, not mine.

zmk_ 9y ago

In the Netherlands, at least, it will not be allowed for researchers to publish articles in journals that erect paywalls.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Derbasti 9y ago
I think this was made a European rule: publicly funded research must be made available to the public (without paywalls). There is currently a huge kerfuffle going on in Germany, with most universities canceling their Elsevier subscription because Elsevier doesn't do true open access. As a scientist, I can only thank goodness for Sci Hub. It is so insulting to go through a grueling review, be expected to do reviews myself for free, then pay thousands of dollars for publishing a pdf, and then pay additional thousands of dollars for accessing my peers works. What a mess.
- betterunix2 9y ago
  The irony is that European universities are one of the reasons we are stuck with the journal publishing model. I have spoken with tenured professors about this, and in general European universities are more concerned with the name of the journal publishing company that publishes the articles a professor has published for things like hiring and granting tenure. The attitude at European schools seems to be that there is a group of companies responsible for maintaining high-quality journals, and that publishing in journals not operated by the incumbents is questionable. As a result, researchers have trouble pursuing alternative publishing models e.g. running journals over the Internet without the likes of Springer/Elsevier/etc. (My own experience is that American schools are too fixated on the names of the journals, but less concerned with the company that publishes the journal. So it would still be pretty tough to break the current model, although not as difficult as it would be with Europe.)
- Yetanfou 9y ago
  Even those who have licensed access to journals thank goodness for Sci-Hub, at least I do. It is often much easier to feed Sci-Hub a DOI and get the paper after negotiating a simple CAPTCHA than it is to log in through some portal so a cookie gets set which tells Wiley that this user has access to these, but not those journals today (but maybe tomorrow, or not), use their search feature to find the correct volume and then finally find the link which hopefully shows an open lock. In this it is comparable to those copy protection schemes of old which made paying users jump through hoops while the pirates just had smooth sailing all the way. Arrrrrr!
  - posterboy 9y ago
    The DOI should take you directly to the article-page. Sci-Hub works through that mechanism.

zmb_ 9y ago

While I completely agree that current big publisher model is broken (which is why I personally don't submit to or review for the big publishers anymore), I wish people would stop making the above argument because it's not helpful nor particularly strong. First, taxpayers do not get direct benefit from most of the things funded by their taxes, only indirect benefits. E.g., you do not get to fly around in a fighter plane even though you partly paid for one, but they will keep you safe. So it does not follow that publicly funded science should automatically be publicly accessible (although personally I believe it should be). Second, in practice the number of people that can get direct benefit from reading any single research paper is very small. The vast majority of those people are working in institutions that have access to the journals, and those few that are not, can usually get a copy simply by emailing the author. So making the papers open will have a very limited real, practical impact for the readers. Third, if the funding source mandates open access (which many now do), all it means is that a few thousand bucks more per publication go into the pockets of the big publishers as open access fees instead of paying for research. And the institutions are still going to have to buy the same subscription packages to the journals to get access to all the articles. So less public money goes to research, more to the bottom lines of the publishers. The real problem is that the high impact venues are privately owned and run for profit. That is the problem that needs to be fixed. E.g., instead of mandating open access, mandate that the Chairs or PIs getting funding must serve on publication venues run by non-profit professional associations. Or set up publicly owned high quality venues (like universities in many countries) and make serving in their editorial and review boards a part of the duties of publicly funded Chairs. Or reduce the impact weight of for-profit publication venues when evaluating candidates for publicly funded positions. etc. etc.

CamperBob2 9y ago
First, taxpayers do not get direct benefit from most of the things funded by their taxes, only indirect benefits. E.g., you do not get to fly around in a fighter plane even though you partly paid for one, but they will keep you safe. So it does not follow that publicly funded science should automatically be publicly accessible (although personally I believe it should be). Ridiculous. Unlike giving free rides in F-35s, it doesn't cost anything to let me see the results of a study that my taxes paid for. You have to go out of your way to keep information under wraps. Second, in practice the number of people that can get direct benefit from reading any single research paper is very small. The vast majority of those people are working in institutions that have access to the journals, and those few that are not, can usually get a copy simply by emailing the author. So making the papers open will have a very limited real, practical impact for the readers. You never know when that "limited, real practical impact" will make all the difference. All it takes is the right set of eyes in the right place at the right time. Not your call, not mine.