4 ms·
A good development - depositing papers in OA journals is extremely expensive and internationally, most funding bodies requiring OA don't give you money to publi
by a_bonobo 5y ago
A good development - depositing papers in OA journals is extremely expensive and internationally, most funding bodies requiring OA don't give you money to publish OA. For example, Nature Communications charges around $5,000 for a single paper; I can send a student to an overseas conference for that kind of money!
Public repositories like arxiv or biorxiv are free.
- arcanus 5y agoI could not agree more: this is a good thing. Studies funded by public money should be freely available by default. This is a great decision and I hope major funding agencies in the USA follow this example. As a practicing scientist, I ostensibly have access to a rich variety of journals from my employer. However, I've found journal access to be difficult during WFH/COVID. My default is to look for an open access paper, before jumping to the digital library. I've also had a few cases where the digital access seemed not to be working, which only put up barriers to my work.
- laurent92 5y agoThe supposed advantage of commercial archiving is duration, where as self-hosted tends to depend on the author; But we could create solutions where, if works are being used by clients (hospitals, research), the client would be in charge of automatically downloading all the dependencies. Like a Maven repository, but with P2P resharing. In similar vein, software used by public institutions should be required to be made open-source. Open source is already the VIIth marvel of humanity, and needs consolidation.