3 ms·

It would be nice if Nature noted that there should not even be need for Sci-Hub as scientific literature should be open for everyone.

wongarsu 5y ago
It would have been a good opportunity to highlight how you can publish articles in Nature as Open Access under a Creative-Commons license so people don't need to pirate them (as long as you have €9500 left over from your grant to cover the fee).
- riedel 5y ago
  Actually our university has dedicated funds to cover open access so you do not necessarily need this in your primary grant. However, it is first come first serve and limited. What is worrying me is that there are so many predidatory open access journals out there and the open access advocates haven't understood the need to limit open access funds to journals that are actually read. And they should make sure that a relevant percentage of the money is actually spent on reviewing and/or editorial work. The money for an open access nature paper is probably well spent in the end. Otherwise publishing preprints is probably the better alternative.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    How about not feeding predatory publishers money? From my understanding: - The actual research and writing work and most of the formatting is done by the researchers. - The reviewing is done by other researchers donating their time, or rather, using work time paid with public money to work for free for these commercial entities. - Most of the distribution is digital. What actual work worth 9500 EUR (plus whatever they get from subscriptions, because until everyone goes open access there will still be subscriptions) do those publishers do nowadays?
    - Schroedingersat 5y ago
      > What actual work worth 9500 EUR (plus whatever they get from subscriptions, because until everyone goes open access there will still be subscriptions) do those publishers do nowadays? Gatekeeping, degrading the quality of research and keeping the reproducability crisis going aren't cheap you know.

wongarsu 5y ago

It would have been a good opportunity to highlight how you can publish articles in Nature as Open Access under a Creative-Commons license so people don't need to pirate them (as long as you have €9500 left over from your grant to cover the fee).

riedel 5y ago
Actually our university has dedicated funds to cover open access so you do not necessarily need this in your primary grant. However, it is first come first serve and limited. What is worrying me is that there are so many predidatory open access journals out there and the open access advocates haven't understood the need to limit open access funds to journals that are actually read. And they should make sure that a relevant percentage of the money is actually spent on reviewing and/or editorial work. The money for an open access nature paper is probably well spent in the end. Otherwise publishing preprints is probably the better alternative.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  How about not feeding predatory publishers money? From my understanding: - The actual research and writing work and most of the formatting is done by the researchers. - The reviewing is done by other researchers donating their time, or rather, using work time paid with public money to work for free for these commercial entities. - Most of the distribution is digital. What actual work worth 9500 EUR (plus whatever they get from subscriptions, because until everyone goes open access there will still be subscriptions) do those publishers do nowadays?
  - Schroedingersat 5y ago
    > What actual work worth 9500 EUR (plus whatever they get from subscriptions, because until everyone goes open access there will still be subscriptions) do those publishers do nowadays? Gatekeeping, degrading the quality of research and keeping the reproducability crisis going aren't cheap you know.