“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
1–10 of 165 posts
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#2The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them.
How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read.
To be clear I think it should be free but want to at least provide some counter point (even if it is paper thin...)
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#3The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
> If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available.
That's necessarily true. It's true that universities pay for journal subscriptions, but I guess a significant portion (or even all) of that expense is covered by the overheads universities charge grants. Given that a significant number of grants are taxpayer-paid, it's likely that tax payers are already paying for the journal subscriptions. So making them open access will shift the costs around, but it isn't immediately obvious that it will cost the taxpayers more than it currently does.
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#4The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
I think there's a difference. Going to a National Park requires additional resources above just having a National Park. People to assist you, additional infrastructure like bathrooms and campsites, etc. So I think it makes sense you pay extra to actually use the park and tax payers are paying just enough to keep the park established.
However, what's the extra cost in distributing the journal article? Hosting fees? A simple website where the paper author uploads a PDF? It seems like those costs are pretty small
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#5The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
I'd argue that it's not having to pay that is the problem alone; instead - the way they charge you an insane amount of money per paper. I wouldn't mind paying, say $1 monthly on entrance to have my park clean. Charging $10 per entry is crazy though.
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#6The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
> If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. That's necessarily true. It's true that universities pay for journal subscriptions, but I guess a significant portion (or even all) of that expense is covered by the overheads universities charge grants. Given that a significant number of grants are taxpayer-paid, it's likely that tax payers are already paying for the journal subscrip…
It's also a much greater undertaking for any individual person to purchase one of those subscriptions, I don't think I've ever heard of a single person doing so where they didn't have some portion of it covered by an employer where the field is relevant, or a university.
Anyone have any rough numbers on what this would cost Joe Schmo to buy?
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#7Can someone get rid of the "?mbid=social_twitter" on this article? it's jumping folks to the middle of the article, quite unnecessarily.
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#8The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
>How many people read this research? 1% of America?
If anything, it's 1% of the world. The problem is not limited to the US.
And it's a very significant 1% which is one of the biggest - if not literally the biggest - drivers of the world economy.
>The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it.
Parks have huge continuing expenses. They're also owned in trust for the public.
Journal publishing has almost no expenses at all. It's pure privatised oligoply. It provides no useful public or private service of any kind.
There is nothing academic publishers do that couldn't be done better in other ways.
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#9The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
I certainly don't have a problem with the users of a service paying something to use that service, in order to save the rest of us a bit of money. That is how the postal system and a lot of public transport works (and, as you say, National Parks).
What's actually ludicrous is that you pay private, profit making companies to allow you to read taxpayer-funded research.
Moreover, taxpayer-funded bodies have to pay these companies to allow them to read taxpayer-funded research from other taxpayer-funded bodies. That is the epitome of private sector wastefulness spreading its tentacles into the public sector.
Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
#10The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it. A lot of people don't even go to the parks now. Making them free will mean more tax money from people who don't go to them. How many people read this research? 1% of America? If it is free then tax payers will have to pay more to make sure it is available. 99% percent will pay to provide things they will never read. To b…
[deleted]