Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 165 posts

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#11

Post by Protohedgehog »

bruceb wrote: post #2

The 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…

It's not necessarily about reading articles. It's about giving everyone the freedom and opportunity to do so if they wish. You might not want to read them now, but what if you became interested in physics, or a friend of family member became ill? You'd want to know more about these things from the research literature, and the current system denies the vast majority of people that opportunity. You don't even know if articles are any good or useful until you've paid. We recently published a paper that attempts to convey different needs for open access to research here: http://f1000research.com/articles/5-632/v1

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#12

Post by chris_wot »

bruceb wrote: post #2

The 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…

Weird argument. If 1% of America is reading this research, then it is most likely because the research is locked behind paywalls where only those going to Universities can get access to the material.

Of course, this whole argument implies that all the research produced is only being viewed by 1% of the population then much of it is worthless and never used, therefore the public funds put into using the research were largely wasted - which we know is definitely not true. And if only 1% of the population is viewing the material, then it seems a bit unlikely that it would be so highly profitable for people like Elsevier.

I mean, this argument breaks down even further because if even only 1% more people were to use the research because it was free, the benefit to society would be worth many orders of magnitude more than the funds that would have been gained from selling the material.

The final, fatal flaw in the argument, however is that the money paid into National Parks is given to the Government, who use it to pay for the upkeep of National Parks. The people who are charging to access research are doing so to make a profit and relying largely on research funded not by the publishers, but by the U.S. Government who give grants! They are hardly contributing their entire profits into research.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#13

Post by Overtonwindow »

I think the article is oversimplifying the issue. This isn't about access, who reads it, or who pays for the research, it's about greed. Plain and simple. Corporations are making money off of the restricting of access to scientific research, and they are fighting to preserve that business model.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#14

Post by leecarraher »

bruceb wrote: post #2

The 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…

The 1% that actually read stuff, are usually under some sort of group journal usage license like a university library, or large organization site license, so they usually aren't paying anyway. I think the biggest hurdle is that these decisions are usually only made (with the exception of the occasional individual $15 ieee article purchase ) by top level executives at the journal's and the "customer's" organizations, while the costs burden is pushed on to every one else at that organization.

My fellow researchers firmly follow the, "citizens paid for it, we are gonna share it" mentality so all results and source material is made available for free online. if someone wants everything organized into a strict 10 page limit, they can have it, but they arent getting anything more than what everyone already has access too.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#15

Post by thaw13579 »

I think the most important point was brushed over in the article--that journals offer prestige. Scientists are entirely aware of the problems, yet they still volunteer to submit their work to them, because they significantly improve the chances of promotion and tenure. These things are already tremendously competitive, so most would rather not volunteer for a handicap by publishing in other venues.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#16

Post by jbmorgado »

bruceb wrote: post #2

The 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…

The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it.

This analogy is completely wrong. The money you pay in admission to the parks go towards the parks in order to maintain and improve the parks, even though you already do that with your taxes.

The money you pay to scientific publications goes to the publisher alone, it does not, in any case, end up financing science.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#17

Post by SeanDav »

bruceb wrote: post #2

The 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…

> "The counter argument to this is you pay to use national parks even though you already pay for it."

You would have a case if the publishers did not make huge profits from the research and contribute nothing back to the research. When you pay for access to a park, you know that money is going towards the running and improvement of the park.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#18

Post by jcizzle »

By this notion, I should get free tickets to all college football games. And my driver's license registration should also be free, don't my taxes already go to paying for the DMV? Wait, should anything that is even remotely funded by taxpayer dollars now be free for everyone that pays taxes?

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#19

Post by chatmasta »

leecarraher wrote: post #14
bruceb wrote: post #2

The 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…

The 1% that actually read stuff, are usually under some sort of group journal usage license like a university library, or large organization site license, so they usually aren't paying anyway. I think the biggest hurdle is that these decisions are usually only made (with the exception of the occasional individual $15 ieee article purchase ) by top level executives at the journal's and the "customer's" organizations,…

Maybe more than 1% would read the papers, if not for the paywall. The basis of your argument is likely due to simple confirmation bias. Sure, 1% read the papers, but only because 1% can read the papers. Who's to say nobody else would be interested if they could read them for free? Of course nobody will read something they know nothing about if they need to pay... But make it free, and they just might.

Re: “You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

#20

Post by DarkContinent »

thaw13579 wrote: post #15

I think the most important point was brushed over in the article--that journals offer prestige. Scientists are entirely aware of the problems, yet they still volunteer to submit their work to them, because they significantly improve the chances of promotion and tenure. These things are already tremendously competitive, so most would rather not volunteer for a handicap by publishing in other venues.

So then the problem is the university tenure system, not the journals.
Post reply on HN