61–70 of 293 posts
A song on the world's smallest violin for publishing companies executives. The fact that this asinine situation has reached this point to begin with is an embarrassment, and that it didn't end when we lost Aaron Swartz is a tragedy.
I get that there are some perverse incentives around, but there is a relatively straightforward solution to all of the problems with journals - just publish your work on the internet first so that it's out in the open, then send it to some journal who can make money from your hard work without adding any value, if you still want to.
Seems like a good thing. Any downsides to this? Any low hanging fruit it misses in making research more open access?
Seems like a good thing. Any downsides to this? Any low hanging fruit it misses in making research more open access?
Definitely agree it's a good thing - my libertarian core can't help but wonder if the white house has (or ought to have) the power to unilaterally declare this, though. Would much prefer this had been voted on by congress.
Having done a short stint dealing with this stuff I am glad something is being done. NIST/NSF funded several studies that I was close to that were suddenly owned by a journal who did nothing but provide a place to put it. Public money should always mean public access. Not just for journals, but for anything. If one red cent of taxpayer money goes to it, the taxpayer should get it for free. Hopefully the trend continu…
I assume military R&D would be a big exception?
The USG spent $6B on cloud computing in 2020. That number is increasing quickly. To say nothing of the massive quantities of non-OSS software that the government buys and incorporates into is own business-critical processes. And it's not just government licenses, but also anyone who interacts with the government. E.g., try interacting with any government agency without an Office 365 license.
You get really funny looks if you say that MSFT should have to give away Office 365 for free if the government is going to use it for anything.
But total USG spend on closed-source software has to be well into the 30B-50B range conservatively. For reference, the entire NSF budget is $10B.
The main reason for this is that there are many monied and powerful stakeholders who benefit from selling closed software to USG, whereas the academic publishers a tiny, often not even American-owned, and got super greedy and screwed their natural contingency (academics hate them as much as or more than anyone else).
Having done a short stint dealing with this stuff I am glad something is being done. NIST/NSF funded several studies that I was close to that were suddenly owned by a journal who did nothing but provide a place to put it. Public money should always mean public access. Not just for journals, but for anything. If one red cent of taxpayer money goes to it, the taxpayer should get it for free. Hopefully the trend continu…
Does “public” here refer to nationally-available, or internationally? Should I be able to access your taxpayer’s research?
Freedom of information is a direct extension of the Declaration of Independence.
Having done a short stint dealing with this stuff I am glad something is being done. NIST/NSF funded several studies that I was close to that were suddenly owned by a journal who did nothing but provide a place to put it. Public money should always mean public access. Not just for journals, but for anything. If one red cent of taxpayer money goes to it, the taxpayer should get it for free. Hopefully the trend continu…
I assume military R&D would be a big exception?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does “public” here refer to nationally-available, or internationally? Should I be able to access your taxpayer’s research?
All persons. The principals enshrined in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence specify no nation in particular. Freedom of information is a direct extension of the Declaration of Independence.
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fda-requests-55-years-to...