
Why is science behind a paywall? - twog
http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/50096804256/why-is-science-behind-a-paywall
======
kanzure
I am a little upset that all of our "space enthusiasts" (including me) didn't
have backups of the content from NTRS (NASA Technical Reports Server). NTRS is
now back online after going down due to political pressures weeks ago, except
85% of the content is now missing. Taking NTRS down removed something like a
whole 2% of _science_ from the public record, plus the majority of everything
we know about becoming a space-faring civilization. Gone.

That is unacceptable.

What's worse is that what happened to NTRS could happen to basically
everything else in science. There's no complete backup and no mirrors. JSTOR
has only a fraction of science; and even if Mendelsevier or SpringerKink were
to go the way of the dinosaur, we wouldn't be able to get content out of JSTOR
anyway, so it's useless in the first place. Heck, there's no lab in the world
that has complete access to all of the papers out there. Science is all kinds
of broken.

We need to get way more serious about science.

<https://groups.google.com/group/science-liberation-front>

~~~
maeon3
We need an off-planet backup of all data contained on the internet in
anticipation of an apocalyptic event sending humanity back into survival
hunter-gatherer mode for a few decades.

Then several generations later when the intellectual education system needs to
be restarted after having spent so many years in the "just stay alive
education system" it will save thousands of years of scientific progress.

I'm hoping one day our species will find one of these information silos,
created by humans billions of years ago, on another planet somewhere, so we
can regain what was lost.

~~~
Simucal
This reminds me of the novel "A Canticle for Leibowitz". The novel is broken
up into 3 periods, each 600 years apart, following a nuclear war that nearly
wiped out humanity.

The first section, "Fiat Homo", revolves around an abbey in the desert, during
a very harsh time in history, several generations after the war. There is
almost no technology as man has been thrust back into the dark ages. People
are just struggling to survive. The few books and relics of the past are
copied by the monks with little to no understanding of what they contain with
the hope that one day they may be useful in rebuilding society.

The second section, "Fiat Lux", revolves around the same abbey but now the
world is in a period of a second renaissance. Great thinkers akin to Galileo
and Copernicus emerge and start rebuilding what we knew of science. One man
travels to the abbey who is considered to be one of the great thinkers of the
age. When he finds remnants of a physics book on optics in the abbey he is
dismayed because he had wasted years of his life re-discovering the principals
within the book himself.

The last section of the book, "Fiat Voluntas Tua", takes place when man now
has nuclear weapons again and technology has advanced to beyond the point of
the first near apocalypse event.

~~~
whatgoodisaroad
Thanks for bringing this up. IMO, one of the best takeaways from this book,
and what makes it somewhat unique among sci-fi, was how it contextualizes the
act of scientific research building on itself and evolving. As a graduate
student working on my own publications this context is fascinating to me.

~~~
keenerd
You might also enjoy _The Originist_ a short story by OS Card. It is a fanfic
set in Asimov's _Foundation_ universe.

Without spoiling the plot, it takes place at The Library and involves the
consequences of what happens when you have 10000 years of scientific history
but limit yourself to the most recent 1000 years of publications. It also
features a very close approximation of wikipedia, for being written in 1989.

~~~
whatgoodisaroad
Thanks! I'll have a look.

------
notahacker
I think it's a little unfair to imply the academic publishing model had
anything to do with the Reinhart-Rogoff debacle. Their paper was supported by
the non-profit NBER who publish it in open access form (the AER version is
downloadable from Rogoff's website too) and was never peer-reviewed. The
authors shared the dataset with the first person to question the results.

If anything it's a reminder that people are cautious about challenging
empirical work by academics of sufficient standing even if it's universally
available, has significant, controversial implications and is widely cited by
high-profile nonacademics. Open access alone doesn't seem to affect that.

~~~
emiliobumachar
If one did not need to ask the authors for the dataset, implicitly challenging
their work, but could instead just download it from a public website linked to
in the paper from day one...

~~~
jacoblyles
I agree with you. But there are a lot of professors that won't share data when
asked, so they deserve credit for that.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Indeed. Also, not publishing the bulk of data is, unfortunately, standard
procedure, not something those particular authors made up.

------
irollboozers
This is such a beautifully and elegantly done analysis. The economics (and
particularly in this article, the history) of science is such an untouched gem
as a fascinating topic. I am so freaking excited to see this post as #1 on HN.

One thing folks don't usually mention when talking about science proliferation
is that academic and scientific papers served for 100's of years as the only
source of science communication. Over time, journals really fit their format
as the best way for scientists to communicate - with eachother. However, if
you were a layman outside the field, academic papers were not the best way
consume science because they were ultimately meant for the colleague in the
next city or town over.

The implications I'd like to think are pretty big. Now that science can be
freed from this old paper format intended for other scientists, here's hoping
that the science content shared in the digital age changes as well. The best
possible outcome is actual science content for the masses. The worst, photo
filters for gel images (I kid).

~~~
saraid216
> The best possible outcome is actual science content for the masses.

This is actually the job of science reporters: you consume the dense content
and explain it in a way that laypeople can understand. Unfortunately, the
profession has been undermined by, well, everything that has been undermining
journalism.

------
jakub_g
> In April 2012, the _Harvard Library_ published a letter stating that their
> subscriptions to academic journals were “financially untenable.” Due to
> price increases as high as 145% over the past 6 years, the library said that
> it would soon be forced to cut back on subscriptions.

Now think what happens in countries not that rich as USA. Worse, this is a
self-sustaining process. A friend of mine is doing PhD and the university
rules are "collect points of vanish". One collects points for publishing in
journals: ~10 for minor/local journal, ~20 for known one and ~30-40 for major
worldwide-famous journal. If you don't have enough points, i.e. not enough
publications or not enough prestigious, they throw you off (the fact that this
additionally gives incentives to publish-often instead publish-well is yet
another story).

------
specialp
I actually work as a developer for non-profit society. I agree that having
paywalls around content is bad and prevents the dissemination and access to
fundamental knowledge. We generate most of our operational revenue through
journal subscriptions. I know from working here that it does indeed cost a
fair amount of money to provide both the IT and editorial support for peer
review and archiving/presenting the data forever.

We are trying to get authors to embrace an open access model where they pay a
fee of $1500 or so to make their paper Creative Commons licensed and free to
read for all. I do think there is a value for peer review and it is harder
than commonly thought because science is so specialized these days.

An area which I think is woefully underserved is the science press. In our
journals, I can barely understand anything published as it requires specialist
knowledge in small areas of study. Just reading papers does not really keep
someone knowledgable about anything but their very specialized sub domain.
Peer review in itself is nice but it is important to provide accessibility to
what is going on in science via non specialist explanations of published
works.

So I agree that the model of paywalling a bunch of PDFs is horribly broken,
and should be disrupted. I think scholarly publishing in general can really
benefit from something like a one time fee to publish your paper and make it
accessible to all not only in regards to paywalls, but in regards to the
material being accessible to non specialists.

------
ysapir
Quality control is essential. I have an interest in linguistics. But on the
internet, some of the linguistics arguments are ridiculous. There are websites
that claim that English (and all world languages) are descendant from Turkish.
It is rubbish. In all types of subjects you find people with these pet
theories, and they can be very prolific, putting their opinion on wikipedia or
wikia or wherever, on websites, in discussions, and there can even be a
following. In software, you can tell rubbish. It compiles or it does not. It
has a lot of bug requests or it does not. This does not map to science. You
can't run a scientific article through a compiler to tell if it is good or
bad. You can't tell if a new physics theory is reputable or some science
fiction. A theory may be 10 years old, and the professor who wrote it unable
to respond to all the queries, "bug requests," but it is still valuable. And a
prolific pseudo-science author may have little "bug requests" because no one
reputable who knows something about the subject has any time to deal with his
nonsense. Without effective quality control, there will be no science. The
article had no real solution to the problem.

~~~
fchollet
Actually, you can (run a scientific claim through a "compiler"): it's the
principle of reproducibility. You should be able to repeat the steps of the
researcher (whether it's an algorithm or a biology experiment...) and get the
same results.

And if we're dealing with a field where there is no objective way to verify a
claim, then any claim should be viewed as mere opinion (a more or less valid
opinion depending on how mainstream it is). As for fields where all claims are
in the realm of opinion... they're not actually part of the scientific family.

~~~
ysapir
Even in natural sciences, there may be experiments that are not easily
reproducible. Finding the Higgs can only be done in a long while (decade or
more) with great financial investment.

Or take the 4th grade test about dinosaurs[1]. Objectively, we can't verify if
the world if thousands or millions or billions of years old, and we can't
verify if dinosaurs lived concurrent with humans or not. We weren't there.
There is evidence, and how we interpret the evidence, and yet the test
features a rather forced interpretation of the evidence. Now, numerically
there may be a lot of people all over the world who prefer the fundamentalist
interpretation, even if they are accredited scientists in universities. In a
completely open environment, this opinion would get more weight than it
deserves, a weight that does not represent its true standing among scientists
who understand all the different implications of the evidence.

[1] <http://www.snopes.com/photos/signs/sciencetest.asp>

------
drorweiss
I doubt if change can come from the existing system and institutions.

Wikipedia did not grow from Britannica.

OpenSource did not grow from commercial software.

YouTube did not grow from Hollywood or commercial TV.

~~~
kristopolous
what would this look like? Any ideas?

~~~
Sven7
Ad supported?

I really don't understand why advertising supports so much superficial BS when
at the same time their customers want better targeting.

The fact that so much worthless stuff gets supported to me implies there is
huge scope for those wasted ad dollars to be redirected to more utilitarian
ends.

~~~
czr80
The "markets" are too niche - ad supported works for mass market sites, not
for specialist journals read by a few tens of people.

~~~
Sven7
Elsevier $2.7 billion revenue comes from tens of people?

Any company that runs an R&D dept would be happy to advertise.

~~~
czr80
Actually, probably some journals could survive from advertising. But I'm a bit
biased by thinking of mathematics journals, and trust me, you can't make that
much advertising to mathematicians.

------
mtgx
For the same reason the idea of "standing on the shoulders of giants" is not
accepted in the world of copyright today anymore - corporate greed.

~~~
e3pi
" ...for the same reason the idea of "standing on the shoulders of giants" is
not accepted in the world of copyright today anymore - corporate

...(executive's salary+stock+bonuses) `inventive creation' of insatible greed
are today's giant shoulders.

------
tjpd
Good article. One issue that often isn't highlighted enough is the role that
funding bodies play. They are complicit in maintaining publishers pricing
power & market share.

Many funding bodies aim to fund the "best" research. How they define "best" is
through scientometrics (essentially bibliometrics or page rank for scientific
articles) - scientists & the sciences are funded in part on how cited the
researcher or the research is. Scientists therefore have a real economic
incentive to ensure their work is published in the most popular or prestigious
journals as these are the most widely cited. The funding bodies could
dismantle the scientific publishing market by awarding grants based on the
accessibility of the research rather than the prestige of the journal.

------
skylan_q
We need to continue providing non-forgiveable gov't loans to students so that
they can continue funneling $8000/year into their schools while also taxing
them and their parents to give grants to profs on tenure so that publishers
can conceal these publicly-funded works of research from us.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
Ooh, ooh, let's subsidize it with deficit spending!

------
hiharryhere
Discussed this with my Dad (a doctor) who offered this up. It's a post by a
researcher discussing a petition to boycott Elsevier

[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/02/27/582...](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2012/02/27/5824/)

This bit sticks out:

"Libraries have been facing increasing costs because of these bundling
practices and the problem is worse in the developing world. I have had emails
from people in Africa and some parts of Asia asking for a copy of an article
because their universities have had to cut costs. According to my publishing
agreement I would be breaking the law to send it to them – this sticks in my
throat, especially after my recent visit to Vietnam."

------
sherwin
The says that a big barrier to adopting 'open source science' is the prestige
that comes with publishing in heavy weight, closed journals. It then draws the
comparison to software, and why open source software is quite successful:

> Addressing this issue, Toni references the open spirit amongst coders
> working on open-source software. “There’s no reward system right now for
> open science. Scientists’ careers don’t benefit from it. But in software,
> everyone wants to see your GitHub account.”

This got me thinking. First, I think a large reason a lot of people (read:
people in my bubble, mostly students / recent CS grads) use GitHub is
precisely because of the prestige. I'd say the people who use GitHub without
ever contributing to an open repo vastly outnumbers the people who do
contribute. Instead, many people start using GitHub as a way to show-off their
own projects -- the whole "GitHub as my resume" idea. But as more people do
so, having a GitHub becomes a standard, and you get a positive feedback loop.

Second, how could we shift the status quo for science to associating prestige
in an open system? I'm not familiar with the history of open source software,
but I wonder if there are any parallels from how OSS grew that we could apply
to science publishing.

Finally, there's a big systemic difference between doing collaborative science
and writing open source software I can think of: the barrier to entry to
software is much lower. A lot of hobbyist programmers contribute to open
source projects (or at least have a GitHub account, which feeds more attention
/ prestige to the ecosystem), whereas it's pretty hard to contribute to
science without both a graduate education and (in many fields) expensive
equipment.

~~~
gjhiggins
> how could we shift the status quo for science to associating prestige in an
> open system

If you're sufficiently motivated to consider actual engagement, you might like
to think about lending support to the excellent work being done by the Open
Knowledge Foundation (<http://okfn.org>)

"The Open Knowledge Foundation (OKF) is a non-profit organisation founded in
2004 and dedicated to promoting open data and open content in all their forms
– including government data, publicly funded research and public domain
cultural content."

There's plenty of opportunity to get in there and make a significant
contribution, e.g. <http://openbiblio.net/> just to pick an example at random.

------
n00b101
I think they should have said more about the trust and quality control issues
with journals (especially Elsevier, which has hundreds of obscure journals).
I'm just a layperson ... but in my brief experience working with academic
researchers during my undergrad days (specifically in the area of data mining
/ machine learning), I was surprised to learn that they did not trust research
simply because it was published in a journal - they only trusted people who
they knew, people they could speak with through informal channels to get
honest opinions from. In data mining, the pattern of most papers is "here is a
new mash-up of algorithms A, B and C, with modifications X and Y, and here are
some prediction accuracy benchmarks that prove the supposed usefulness of our
supposedly new method." Needless to say, the actual code and test data sets
are rarely ever shared. I recall coming across an outrageous number of data
mining papers, appearing in Elsevier journals, which claimed to be able to
predict stock markets (!!!), written by people who did not have any real
understanding of finance and I guess did not understand how unlikely it really
is to find predictive patterns in liquid, financial markets.

Another thing missing from this discussion is the style in which scientific
papers are written. Invariably, published scientific papers are unhelpfully
dense and terse, difficult to understand, full of needlessly obfuscated
mathematical notation, and in general they are severely lacking in clarity.
There is a stark contrast in the style of these formal papers and the style in
which real research is actually shared and understood - through talks,
presentations, teaching, textbooks, consultations, etc, where you have some
hope of efficiently comprehending what the author is trying to present. I
suspect that this obfuscation in papers is driven by the publishers and
referees who impose a specific rigid style, combined with the researchers
themselves who think that the less comprehensible their papers are to a wide
audience, the smarter and more credible they will appear to be on the surface.

Another problem is that one can often identify small groups of researchers who
publish papers on the same topic and cite each others and their own papers,
but nobody outside of their little bubble cites their research. I think that
this phenomenon is due to a combination of the aforementioned lack of trust,
lack of academic honestly, lack of transparency and deliberate lack of
clarity.

One idea that I had is that the Internet could be used to create public
networks of trust, so that researchers can identify other researchers as
trusted authorities on specific topics. Academic communities have these
implicit networks of trust already, but to an outsider it is very difficult to
figure out who the leading innovators are on some obscure topic. A trust
network, combined with citation data, could provide a graph that could serve
as a useful tool for research as well as a kind of "GitHub" for researchers to
increase their prestige and positions.

Another tool for escaping the publishing doldrums is standard benchmarks. In
data mining and machine learning, for example, there are some standard data
sets and performance measurements, so that anyone who claims to come up with a
better statistical predictor can test their theory against the existing data
sets and compare results against other approaches. There are also similar
performance benchmarks for database query performance, in computer science. I
think that there should be more of these.

The real difficulty with all of this is incentivization, as the article points
out. I think it goes beyond the issue of for-profit publishing companies and
funders. I suspect that there is a large contingent of researchers who are
secretly "hacks" and they don't WANT the bright spotlight of transparency to
shown onto them, because they would be exposed and would not be able to
sustain academic careers and tenures built on publishing worthless papers in
obscure journals for "bubble communities." One example of a bubble community
is "Fuzzy Logic," which has proven to be intellectually unsound and logically
inconsistent, but which continues to fuel academic publishing careers,
facilitated by companies like Elsevier who maintain obscure, wacky journals
with a for-profit motive. I think the article is entirely appropriate in
describing academic publishing as "fraud-lite." Personally, I was permanently
turned off from the idea of an academic career after seeing "how the sausage
is made" and seeing how worthless and suspect so many published papers are.

------
nell
Pricenomics has been writing some interesting data analysis pieces for
sometime now. Kudos!! Keep'em coming.

Are there any other blogs like that?

~~~
jakub_g
I enjoy reading DataGenetics [1] (found it on the front page of HN of course).
They write thorough articles on various topics. I've read a couple of it and
found them great, e.g. PIN analysis [2] and Distributing passwords [3].

[1] <http://www.datagenetics.com/blog.html>

[2] <http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/september32012/index.html>

[3] <http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/november22012/index.html>

------
unabridged
The best way to eliminate pay journals is to start lobbying public/nonprofit
grant providers to require all research done to published in open journals,
similar to what the NSF is doing right now. Pressure can also be put on the
state governments to make public universities require publishing in open
journals.

------
readme
So, what's the alternative to paying for science? We fund it either out of
philanthropy, or taxes. I think we know we can't fund all of the world's
scientific endeavors on philanthropy alone.

This is where things get a bit selfish: everyone likes science. Everyone
benefits from it. But, to what extent do we make the subsidization of
scientific efforts compulsory?

Some people just want to live their life and die happy. Not everyone wants to
pay for mars rovers. At this point, I expect a bunch of science lovers to get
emotional and downvote my post.

If you can't fully fund science out of philanthropy, then it will be behind a
paywall. Who'd have thought you need to pay for some of the most valuable
information on the Earth? Wow.

People will pay for a half-assed book on PHP, but if you want to sell a
journal on astrophysics the internet gets all riled up about it.

~~~
klipt
Actually the issue is that we're currently paying for it twice. Once to fund
the research, and then again to read the journal. The actual scientist doesn't
get any part of the second cost; only the publishing company does.

~~~
readme
I see. That is an excellent point. The internet is supposed to enable
scientists to share this information for free (that's what it was for, right)

~~~
czr80
Well, scientists do share information for free - they can, and do, just post
it to their websites or a preprint archive like ArXiv.

------
natejenkins
We (<https://www.authorea.com>) are trying to be a small part of the solution.
The question becomes "How do you incentivize researchers to publish in open
science/open data journals?"

Giving the possibility of a modern article (only works in chrome for the
moment but check out
<https://www.authorea.com/users/1/articles/1345/_show_article> for an example)
is one way. Making collaboration easier is another.

Until the incentives are in place researchers will continue to try and boost
their careers by publishing in the most highly regarded journals, open or not.

EDIT: fixed link

------
s0rce
I think the most effective solution so far is the NIH public access policy,
<http://publicaccess.nih.gov/>. For all NIH funded work the authors have to
release the paper. What happens is the Scientists get to publish in high-
impact closed-access journals, like Nature/Science and then the pre-press
manuscript is made available open access. I'm not sure what would happen to
the closed-access journal business model if more federal science funding
agencies went this way but I assume everyone would read the free version.

~~~
new299
I don't know about the NIH specifically but often what happens is journals
will charge to make/allow an to be article open access. The NIH will
give/include in grants funds for paying journals to make a paper open access
(often a few thousand USD).

So in some ways the journals don't care, because they're getting paid.
Personally, I don't like an author pays model much either, as it doesn't
account for scientists working outside their grants (or God forbid independent
scientists).

------
jokoon
I wonder why it was the soviets who launched the first satellite, and not the
americans.

I don't want to troll, but I'm wondering why this did not happened in the US,
and instead in a communist country.

~~~
jmyc
According to now-declassified documents, the US had the capability but chose
not to launch a satellite due to setting legal precedent. I.e., they wanted to
launch spy satellites but were worried that if they initiated this, it could
be interpreted as an act of war. If instead the USSR was first to launch a
satellite and it flew over the US, then the US could do the same in turn
without provoking war.

See, e.g. [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/sputnik-
declassified.h...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/military/sputnik-
declassified.html)

Here is some of the transcript from that:

\--

> NARRATOR: What Eisenhower most wants is information about the enemy's
> forces. Early in 1954, he authorizes illegal military over-flights to
> photograph the Soviet Union.

> R. CARGILL HALL: This was a major presidential decision. These peacetime
> over-flights of the Soviet Union were very risky, first of all because these
> aircraft could not operate at altitudes above Soviet air defenses.

> NARRATOR: March, 1954: American fighters photograph Soviet air bases near
> Vladivostok. In April, American planes again enter Soviet airspace. But in
> May, Eisenhower's strategy backfires. An American bomber flies into Russia
> and is attacked by Soviet fighters. The damaged bomber barely makes it home.

> It is 1954, three years before Sputnik. Eisenhower is committed to
> surveillance of the Soviet Union. But he needs a better way.

\--

> By early 1955, Eisenhower is set on creating a reconnaissance satellite. But
> the Killian Report has pointed out a problem: the legal status of space has
> not been defined.

> National boundaries extend into the atmosphere, but how far up does
> territorial airspace go? The answer will be critical to Eisenhower's spy
> satellite plan.

\--

> LEE WEBSTER: When we fired that, we knew we could put a vehicle in orbit,
> because we had the velocity that it required. If we'd been given the go-
> ahead, we could have beat Sputnik by a year. We had the hardware over in
> Redstone, sitting in warehouses ready to go.

> RANDY CLINTON: We could have beat them. And that's the thing that grabbed
> us, hurt the most, is we knew, ahead of time, that we could have beat them.

\--

> Just a few days after Sputnik was launched, Donald Quarles, from the
> Department of Defense, is in the Oval Office talking to Eisenhower. And one
> of the points that he makes is that he thinks that the Soviets have done us
> a good turn. They had established a precedent of over-flight, exactly what
> Eisenhower wanted to do initially, and now the Soviets had done it for us.

\--

I'm not sure this is the complete story (I realize the above may come off as
blindly pro-US), but it's an element that was unknown for 50 years while that
information was still classified. I think the access to scientific papers is
not a key part of that event (and besides, 50 years ago the traditional
scientific publishing model still made sense).

~~~
jokoon
What about first man in space ? Was it what the soviets had more data from
sputnik to make it happen ?

Anyway, why can't governments make innovation just happen ? Have they tried
torturing scientists to actually get results ? I mean if that doesn't work,
what does ? How far did governments bend to scientists so they can do good
work ? I'm sure we could start by pioneering in the field of stimulating
innovation without money, by hiring managers that specializing in meeting the
needs of scientists.

I'm still wondering about what actually makes successful scientists, and if we
know, why can't we experiment on kids to breed them into achieving persons. Or
just breed orphans ?

~~~
mzr
What? Did you miss the whole Apollo program? That was a government program.
There are few things that come close to the innovation achieved in that
program. Yes, there were private industry contractors. But it would not
happened without the government.

~~~
jokoon
why isn't the government doing more ?

------
ccdan
Not much of a surprise. There's way, way too much not only useless research
but totally wrong research (bad data, close to zero use of the scientific
method, reliance on fallacies like correlation = causation and so on) Rigor in
science must increase and fund should be directed to serious, experimental
research based on the scientific method.

------
crazy1van
Dear science journals,

Glad I could continue to fund your now-obsolete business.

Sincerely, The Taxpayers

------
darxius
Let me go on a tangent here and say that this is a fantastically written
article. I'm continuously impressed with the quality of material coming out of
the Priceonomics blog.

------
mpr3
A temp way around this is to enrol in a university for one credit, and then
drop out shortly after. You'll have full access while you're an official
student.

------
homosaur
Spoiler: corruption.

------
yekko
Because it's no longer science. It's corruption.

------
MatthewPhillips
Simple, science is not a commodity.

~~~
scott_karana
And yet, the article is about how research has been commoditized.

------
youngerdryas
If pirate bay was really interested in justice they would take up this cause.

~~~
shabble
<http://thepaperbay.com/> (By HN's jacquesm, I believe[1])

[1] <http://jacquesmattheij.com/introducing-thepaperbay>

