4 ms·

These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally.

by Tepix 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally There is a legitimate argument in the value added of curating research into journals. The publishers don’t do this. But simply eliminating that curation mode is unlikely to be feasible.
- Tepix 5y ago
  Sure, I'm not saying these journals should be abolished, i merely want the papers to be available for free. You might still want to browse the journal to see what is hot right now.
rjmunro 5y ago
I hear they generally are "freely" available, just email the authors and ask.
- subroutine 5y ago
  Having to wait for an author to email you a copy isn't a viable solution. Even getting authors to post a free copy, which is NIH mandate is often overlooked... https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm
  - Someone 5y ago
    That’s not something you can blame the publishers for.
    - subroutine 5y ago
      Not saying it is.
- BelenusMordred 5y ago
  You're not wrong but that system only works on a very small scale. Do you really think the authors would be amenable to answering 10000 emails with the exact same request?
  - pmyteh 5y ago
    Fortunately(?) most of us will never be in a position where even 10 people ask to do that...
  - ebiester 5y ago
    In general, an averagely successful paper in most disciplines will get 200-250 readers. It’s only when there is outsized media attention that there is any issue. And luckily, for those cases today, sci-hub is available.
    - worik 5y ago
      A lot more readers than that, surely? In most disciplines there are a lot of, er, disciples. What is the definition of "moderately successful?" Perhaps you mean citations?
      - pmyteh 5y ago
        The modal number of citations for an academic paper is ~0. 200 citations is a very successful paper in any discipline.
- omega3 5y ago
  Out of my small sample of three, one author sent me a journal, one ignored the request and another told me to pay him for it.
- jasode 5y ago
  >I hear they generally are "freely" available, just email the authors and ask. I didn't downvote you but the way contracts work, the researchers are not allowed to share the final published article that was professionally edited and typeset by the journal. What they can legally share are the preprints and manuscripts.[1] Yes, some researchers may ignore the contract they signed (wink wink) and share the final published pdf. IME whenever I asked for a paper, I got the preprint -- which means the author honored their publishing contract. The preprint is fine in most cases because it will have the main idea of the research. However, it's often missing the pretty graphs and illustrations that the journal adds. [1] https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing
Someone 5y ago
Authors are to blame, too. They can put their publications on arXiv. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing: “Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time. If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to link from the preprint to their formal publication via its Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Millions of researchers have access to the formal publications on ScienceDirect, and so links will help your users to find, access, cite, and use the best available version. Authors can update their preprints on arXiv or RePEc with their accepted manuscript.” there still is an issue with older articles that authors don’t have PDFs of, or whose authors aren’t in the field anymore (or even died). That problem will stay, but _if_ authors start putting their publications on arXiv, their university server, etc. en masse, also will get smaller over time.
- stared 5y ago
  Leading journals allow publishing preprints on arXiv only as there was considerable pressure. In the quantum physics community (where it was expected to post results on arXiv), a journal not allowing arXiv was not considered. So either their de facto allowed, or even started officially to do so. I don't remember the exact dates, but Nature (who had been hesitant for a long time) gave in as well. They resisted a long time as they were (and are) considered a badge of honor.
majormajor 5y ago
> These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally. I strongly disagree with this. Labor has value, and we shouldn't let capital alone dictate ownership. The people who do the research are more important than the bureaucrats who signed the checks.
- mcguire 5y ago
  The people doing the research don't get paid for publications. At all. Ever. It's just part of their job.

These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally.

by Tepix 5y ago

These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally.

> papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally There is a legitimate argument in the value added of curating research into journals. The publishers don’t do this. But simply eliminating that curation mode is unlikely to be feasible.

Tepix 5y ago
Sure, I'm not saying these journals should be abolished, i merely want the papers to be available for free. You might still want to browse the journal to see what is hot right now.

rjmunro 5y ago

I hear they generally are "freely" available, just email the authors and ask.

subroutine 5y ago
Having to wait for an author to email you a copy isn't a viable solution. Even getting authors to post a free copy, which is NIH mandate is often overlooked... https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm
- Someone 5y ago
  That’s not something you can blame the publishers for.
  - subroutine 5y ago
    Not saying it is.
BelenusMordred 5y ago
You're not wrong but that system only works on a very small scale. Do you really think the authors would be amenable to answering 10000 emails with the exact same request?
- pmyteh 5y ago
  Fortunately(?) most of us will never be in a position where even 10 people ask to do that...
- ebiester 5y ago
  In general, an averagely successful paper in most disciplines will get 200-250 readers. It’s only when there is outsized media attention that there is any issue. And luckily, for those cases today, sci-hub is available.
  - worik 5y ago
    A lot more readers than that, surely? In most disciplines there are a lot of, er, disciples. What is the definition of "moderately successful?" Perhaps you mean citations?
    - pmyteh 5y ago
      The modal number of citations for an academic paper is ~0. 200 citations is a very successful paper in any discipline.
omega3 5y ago
Out of my small sample of three, one author sent me a journal, one ignored the request and another told me to pay him for it.
jasode 5y ago
>I hear they generally are "freely" available, just email the authors and ask. I didn't downvote you but the way contracts work, the researchers are not allowed to share the final published article that was professionally edited and typeset by the journal. What they can legally share are the preprints and manuscripts.[1] Yes, some researchers may ignore the contract they signed (wink wink) and share the final published pdf. IME whenever I asked for a paper, I got the preprint -- which means the author honored their publishing contract. The preprint is fine in most cases because it will have the main idea of the research. However, it's often missing the pretty graphs and illustrations that the journal adds. [1] https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing

Someone 5y ago

Authors are to blame, too. They can put their publications on arXiv. https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing: “Authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time. If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to link from the preprint to their formal publication via its Digital Object Identifier (DOI). Millions of researchers have access to the formal publications on ScienceDirect, and so links will help your users to find, access, cite, and use the best available version. Authors can update their preprints on arXiv or RePEc with their accepted manuscript.” there still is an issue with older articles that authors don’t have PDFs of, or whose authors aren’t in the field anymore (or even died). That problem will stay, but _if_ authors start putting their publications on arXiv, their university server, etc. en masse, also will get smaller over time.

stared 5y ago
Leading journals allow publishing preprints on arXiv only as there was considerable pressure. In the quantum physics community (where it was expected to post results on arXiv), a journal not allowing arXiv was not considered. So either their de facto allowed, or even started officially to do so. I don't remember the exact dates, but Nature (who had been hesitant for a long time) gave in as well. They resisted a long time as they were (and are) considered a badge of honor.

majormajor 5y ago

> These papers that have been paid for by tax payers and peer reviewed for free should be made freely available legally. I strongly disagree with this. Labor has value, and we shouldn't let capital alone dictate ownership. The people who do the research are more important than the bureaucrats who signed the checks.

mcguire 5y ago
The people doing the research don't get paid for publications. At all. Ever. It's just part of their job.