4 ms·

In many countries there are taxes you have to pay to be allowed to use the roads.

fao_ 9y ago
Yes, but that's because use of a road causes wear. Homeowners didn't want to foot the bill for the road outside their house, and potholes are a real problem to safety. People who use the roads are the ones creating potholes, so why not charge them for that? It's a public service, like the fire service or the national health service.
- simonh 9y ago
  The fact there’s a reason for it doesn’t change the fact. However yes, public highways cost money to maintain. They can’t be truly free unless the construction and maintenance were free - donated land and volunteer labour? Right. Otherwise somebody has to pay for it. Frankly it’s potentially the same way with published scientific papers, we do need a system of professional peer review. That could be voluntary, but would probably be better if it were independently funded in some way. ArXiv is one approach but I’m not sure it’s a complete solution.
  - taneq 9y ago
    Now imagine your state funded public highways were vetted by some private company, let's call them "Elsewhere, Inc", who wrote a 3-line review of each highway and then charged taxpaying members of the public $30-$50 per journey to use those highways. And then Elsewhere, Inc managed to convince most civil engineering companies to gauge employees' performance solely by whether or not Elsewhere, Inc has reviewed the roads they built.
    - jhbadger 9y ago
      Actually, imagine that rather than writing the reviews themselves, Elsewhere simply asked other road builders to evaluate the roads of their peers for free. That's the situation in publishing -- the publishers don't even do the peer review -- they get content for free from authors, get peer review for free from reviewers, and then charge readers to access the final papers!
      - taneq 9y ago
        You know it's bad when I'm being snarky and I still don't push it as far as they do with a straight face.
  - Gravityloss 9y ago
    Peer reviewers are not usually compensated.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Peer review is already being done and it's free. Distribution is "too cheap to meter". Editing is pretty much not done at all at the publisher level. So to fit the road tax model - we already pay for research. So let's add 0.0001$ extra tax for publishing, and kill off the current publishers.
  - Maken 9y ago
    Peer review is voluntary and done by other researchers in the field. Publishers mostly take care of editing the final text (basically typos and formatting) and uploading them to their servers.
cc81 9y ago
You are paying taxes that fund research as well.
pwinnski 9y ago
We pay taxes whether we use the roads or not. Those taxes are decoupled from any given road. Further, when I visit a state in which I do not live, I use those freeways without paying a cent, directly or indirectly. If the complaint is that roads require maintenance and are therefore not free, that's a torture of the word.

fao_ 9y ago

Yes, but that's because use of a road causes wear. Homeowners didn't want to foot the bill for the road outside their house, and potholes are a real problem to safety. People who use the roads are the ones creating potholes, so why not charge them for that? It's a public service, like the fire service or the national health service.

simonh 9y ago
The fact there’s a reason for it doesn’t change the fact. However yes, public highways cost money to maintain. They can’t be truly free unless the construction and maintenance were free - donated land and volunteer labour? Right. Otherwise somebody has to pay for it. Frankly it’s potentially the same way with published scientific papers, we do need a system of professional peer review. That could be voluntary, but would probably be better if it were independently funded in some way. ArXiv is one approach but I’m not sure it’s a complete solution.
- taneq 9y ago
  Now imagine your state funded public highways were vetted by some private company, let's call them "Elsewhere, Inc", who wrote a 3-line review of each highway and then charged taxpaying members of the public $30-$50 per journey to use those highways. And then Elsewhere, Inc managed to convince most civil engineering companies to gauge employees' performance solely by whether or not Elsewhere, Inc has reviewed the roads they built.
  - jhbadger 9y ago
    Actually, imagine that rather than writing the reviews themselves, Elsewhere simply asked other road builders to evaluate the roads of their peers for free. That's the situation in publishing -- the publishers don't even do the peer review -- they get content for free from authors, get peer review for free from reviewers, and then charge readers to access the final papers!
    - taneq 9y ago
      You know it's bad when I'm being snarky and I still don't push it as far as they do with a straight face.
- Gravityloss 9y ago
  Peer reviewers are not usually compensated.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Peer review is already being done and it's free. Distribution is "too cheap to meter". Editing is pretty much not done at all at the publisher level. So to fit the road tax model - we already pay for research. So let's add 0.0001$ extra tax for publishing, and kill off the current publishers.
- Maken 9y ago
  Peer review is voluntary and done by other researchers in the field. Publishers mostly take care of editing the final text (basically typos and formatting) and uploading them to their servers.

cc81 9y ago

You are paying taxes that fund research as well.

pwinnski 9y ago

We pay taxes whether we use the roads or not. Those taxes are decoupled from any given road. Further, when I visit a state in which I do not live, I use those freeways without paying a cent, directly or indirectly. If the complaint is that roads require maintenance and are therefore not free, that's a torture of the word.