2 ms·

That's an absurd rationalization, and I don't believe it. First, it's an absurd rationalization because all the finding agencies need to do is say "starting Ja

That's an absurd rationalization, and I don't believe it. First, it's an absurd rationalization because all the finding agencies need to do is say "starting Jan 2019, all research papers funded by this fund must be open access; each violation results in $1k reduction in the grant", and any journals that don't yet have the option would provide a ~$1k open access publishing option. Second, I don't believe the rationalization is what's really going on. I think there just aren't any/enough people at the funding agencies that care.

Vinnl 8y ago
As for your first point: that is in fact what is happening. It's somewhat of a "loophole" in that is has allowed funders to mandate open access without restricting academic freedom, by simply making money available to publish those single articles as open access. The downside then is that it still leads to public funds being wasted: rather than paying money to access research, it is paid to publish it. The costs are then still disproportionate to the actual service provided, and it's still a barrier to inclusivity in academia (e.g. towards researchers in developing countries or in industry). I expanded on this in more detail at https://medium.com/flockademic/to-fix-scholarly-publishing-decouple-credentialing-from-publishing-29b211f49acc https://medium.com/flockademic/to-fix-scholarly-publishing-d... As for your second point: obviously there are many funding agencies, and surely people don't care at some. I was mostly referring to those who do want to promote the adoption of open access, such as the Gates Foundation or the Wellcome Trust (and many national funding bodies). They have absolutely come out making the above argument. They're really hesitant about this (although without a doubt also due to lobbying by the traditional publishers), which is laudable but also exacerbates the problem. (Note also that they do have reason to be hesitant: science has seen a lot of pushback in the past, so these lessons have been hard-won and are ingrained in their DNA. Any movement that appears to go in the direction of the times when the catholic church could limit the adoption of scientific theories is met with heavy scepticism.)

Vinnl 8y ago

As for your first point: that is in fact what is happening. It's somewhat of a "loophole" in that is has allowed funders to mandate open access without restricting academic freedom, by simply making money available to publish those single articles as open access. The downside then is that it still leads to public funds being wasted: rather than paying money to access research, it is paid to publish it. The costs are then still disproportionate to the actual service provided, and it's still a barrier to inclusivity in academia (e.g. towards researchers in developing countries or in industry). I expanded on this in more detail at https://medium.com/flockademic/to-fix-scholarly-publishing-decouple-credentialing-from-publishing-29b211f49acc https://medium.com/flockademic/to-fix-scholarly-publishing-d... As for your second point: obviously there are many funding agencies, and surely people don't care at some. I was mostly referring to those who do want to promote the adoption of open access, such as the Gates Foundation or the Wellcome Trust (and many national funding bodies). They have absolutely come out making the above argument. They're really hesitant about this (although without a doubt also due to lobbying by the traditional publishers), which is laudable but also exacerbates the problem. (Note also that they do have reason to be hesitant: science has seen a lot of pushback in the past, so these lessons have been hard-won and are ingrained in their DNA. Any movement that appears to go in the direction of the times when the catholic church could limit the adoption of scientific theories is met with heavy scepticism.)