4 ms·

Might this be a case where the best resolution would be to have the government (which is at least partially funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add

by munk-a 5y ago

Might this be a case where the best resolution would be to have the government (which is at least partially funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add a ledger of papers as a proof of investment? The cost of maintaining a free and open DB of scientific advances and publications would be so incredibly insignificant compared to both the value and the continued investment in those advancements.

einpoklum 5y ago
Well, some research venues (and publication venues) are not government-funded, and even if they are indirectly government funded, it's more of a sophistry than something which would make publishers hand over copies of the papers. Also, a per-government ledger would not be super-practicable. But if, say, the US, the EU and China would agree on something like this, and implement it, and have a common ledger, then it would not be some a big leap to make it properly international. Maybe even UN-based. That's a pretty big "if" though.
jpeloquin 5y ago
> Might this be a case where the best resolution would be to have the government (which is at least partially funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add a ledger of papers as a proof of investment? I feel that we're halfway there already and are gaining ground. Does Pubmed Central [0] (a government-hosted open access repository for NIH-funded work) count as a "ledger" like you're referring to? The NSF's site does a good job of explaining current US open access policy [1]. There are occasional attempts to expand the open access mandate by legislation, such as FASTR [2]. A hypothetical expansion of the open access mandate to apply to all works from /institutions/ that receive indirect costs, not just individual projects that receive direct costs, would open things up even more. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ [1] https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16009/nsf16009.jsp#q1 https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16009/nsf16009.jsp#q1 [2] https://sparcopen.org/our-work/fastr/ https://sparcopen.org/our-work/fastr/

by munk-a 5y ago

einpoklum 5y ago

Well, some research venues (and publication venues) are not government-funded, and even if they are indirectly government funded, it's more of a sophistry than something which would make publishers hand over copies of the papers. Also, a per-government ledger would not be super-practicable. But if, say, the US, the EU and China would agree on something like this, and implement it, and have a common ledger, then it would not be some a big leap to make it properly international. Maybe even UN-based. That's a pretty big "if" though.

jpeloquin 5y ago

> Might this be a case where the best resolution would be to have the government (which is at least partially funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add a ledger of papers as a proof of investment? I feel that we're halfway there already and are gaining ground. Does Pubmed Central [0] (a government-hosted open access repository for NIH-funded work) count as a "ledger" like you're referring to? The NSF's site does a good job of explaining current US open access policy [1]. There are occasional attempts to expand the open access mandate by legislation, such as FASTR [2]. A hypothetical expansion of the open access mandate to apply to all works from /institutions/ that receive indirect costs, not just individual projects that receive direct costs, would open things up even more. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ [1] https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16009/nsf16009.jsp#q1 https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2016/nsf16009/nsf16009.jsp#q1 [2] https://sparcopen.org/our-work/fastr/ https://sparcopen.org/our-work/fastr/