3 ms·

Many of the prestigious journals do require an exclusive license: https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/policies/journal-policies/licensing-and-copyri

Many of the prestigious journals do require an exclusive license: https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/policies/journal-policies/licensing-and-copyright https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-science/policies/jour... Under the Springer Nature Subscription licence agreement Share the final published work with peers: Limited sharing for research and career advancement allowed And it's typically quite expensive to publish under the OA license. I still see no problem with the proposed law. One of two things would happen: 1) Federally funded researchers publish elsewhere or 2) Springer changes their ridiculous agreements, there's no reason they must be granted exclusive rights to a paper just to publish it especially when taxpayers funded the research. I'd be willing to bet that 1 will lead to 2 in short order.

bruce511 2y ago
>> Many of the prestigious journals do require an exclusive license Of course they do. But nothing forces the researcher to use those journals. So the question becomes why do they? Perhaps there's prestige involved? >> 1) Federally funded researchers publish elsewhere That's my point. Since researchers already have this option why are they not exercising it? Why are researchers happy, indeed prefer, publishing with Springer? Only by understanding why they currently choose to use Springer et al, can you understand what is lost by requiring free publishing.
- aeternum 2y ago
  >Only by understanding why they currently choose to use Springer et al, can you understand what is lost by requiring free publishing. Because we're stuck in a local sub-optima. Those journals are currently prestigious because top researchers publish in them and top researchers publish in them because they are prestigious. A high acceptance bar may play a role but that is easily achievable and generally does not work anyway based on the number of fraudulent papers that have been accepted. Reviewer comments should be published alongside as should the data.

bruce511 2y ago

>> Many of the prestigious journals do require an exclusive license Of course they do. But nothing forces the researcher to use those journals. So the question becomes why do they? Perhaps there's prestige involved? >> 1) Federally funded researchers publish elsewhere That's my point. Since researchers already have this option why are they not exercising it? Why are researchers happy, indeed prefer, publishing with Springer? Only by understanding why they currently choose to use Springer et al, can you understand what is lost by requiring free publishing.

aeternum 2y ago
>Only by understanding why they currently choose to use Springer et al, can you understand what is lost by requiring free publishing. Because we're stuck in a local sub-optima. Those journals are currently prestigious because top researchers publish in them and top researchers publish in them because they are prestigious. A high acceptance bar may play a role but that is easily achievable and generally does not work anyway based on the number of fraudulent papers that have been accepted. Reviewer comments should be published alongside as should the data.