3 ms·

What if we look at the sitiuation from publishers' point of view? Yesterday those weird scientints gave to you the rights to their works, and the next day they

What if we look at the sitiuation from publishers' point of view? Yesterday those weird scientints gave to you the rights to their works, and the next day they demand that you allow them to read their works for free.

jimktrains2 8y ago
> Yesterday those weird scientints gave to you the rights to their works. Yesterday there weren't any, let alone good, alternatives. Even today with good alternatives, the way publishing in "high impact" journals is tied to pay can make the issue not really have other options. Free access to knowledge is fairly foundational to science and something that's has been talked about for a while. This isn't a new problem. It comes as a surprise to no one. This is doubly true given the amount of government money spent on this research that is then being kept from the public.
- codedokode 8y ago
  But today, even with alternatives present, scientists still give away or sell their rights to the journals. The scientists are often paid be the government. So it is the government that creates this situation and makes "high impact" journals what they are. It is the government that doesn't mandate free access to the knowledge.
  - jimktrains2 8y ago
    Yes, I covered that in my response. Alternatives exist, but can't be used in circumstances where your career may be on the line. I agree, however, that receiving government funding should require open access publishing.
  - pfortuny 8y ago
    The thing is: as long as you do not have tenure, you simply CANNOT fight. At least in a meaningful way. My case, by the way.
- AGWeir 8y ago
  In the UK all research councils and the National Institute for Health Research awards carry restrictions that everything is made open access. It is a step in the right direction but it also means that more government funding is just going to journals via paying article processing charges

jimktrains2 8y ago

> Yesterday those weird scientints gave to you the rights to their works. Yesterday there weren't any, let alone good, alternatives. Even today with good alternatives, the way publishing in "high impact" journals is tied to pay can make the issue not really have other options. Free access to knowledge is fairly foundational to science and something that's has been talked about for a while. This isn't a new problem. It comes as a surprise to no one. This is doubly true given the amount of government money spent on this research that is then being kept from the public.

codedokode 8y ago
But today, even with alternatives present, scientists still give away or sell their rights to the journals. The scientists are often paid be the government. So it is the government that creates this situation and makes "high impact" journals what they are. It is the government that doesn't mandate free access to the knowledge.
- jimktrains2 8y ago
  Yes, I covered that in my response. Alternatives exist, but can't be used in circumstances where your career may be on the line. I agree, however, that receiving government funding should require open access publishing.
- pfortuny 8y ago
  The thing is: as long as you do not have tenure, you simply CANNOT fight. At least in a meaningful way. My case, by the way.
AGWeir 8y ago
In the UK all research councils and the National Institute for Health Research awards carry restrictions that everything is made open access. It is a step in the right direction but it also means that more government funding is just going to journals via paying article processing charges