Why on earth do people think this is to the detriment of publishers? This will effectively just lock in their profits by forcing all eu grants to include the cost of payments to publishers to make research papers open access. It just means the taxpayer is now paying for open access instead of individuals having to pay up themselves. Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, and it is possibly worth publicly subsidising this as an intermediate step, but it is far from being one in the eye for publishers as other comments here seem to think.
Here in the UK we already have an open-access requirement for RCUK and EPSRC grants, but it can be met by uploading a preprint to an institution- or subject-specific repository (such as arXiv) and including a link to it in your report back to the grant sponsor.
Last time I published in a journal, I got a "special offer" of $1200 instead of $2000 to make it open access. I politely rejected the offer - it's already online for $0, just hosted by the university itself.
This is from May, but the commitment is welcome none the less. As other comments mention there are plenty of ways for academic papers to be free to read and for us to still have a broken system.
In the UK, 'green route' or self-archiving means that, after a moratorium, you can put your paper on your institution's website. The moratorium could be three years, so it's still highly restrictive and locks in commercial publishers' profits.
My view is that a 'knowledge commons' system could easily work. Wikipedia apparently spends $50 million in total. I believe a similar amount of funding would easily support an academic publishing ecosystem in which publishing and reading are free.
> It does however provide a limit on how much money each publisher can extract from a paper.
Why should we accept publishers to decide on what this limit should be? Currently it can be as high as $5000. For hosting a PDF. This is a total waste of (mostly public) money.
> It also makes free or cheaper services more competitive.
No because as long as we permit to those publishers to exists and exercise their copyrights on prestigious journal title, their is a big inertia that incentivize researchers to publish with the publishers that hold the prestigious journal.
That's why we also need to get rid of bibliometrics for evaluating researchers for their career. Bibliometrics is the game of the publishers, and coincidentally, the biggest bibliometrics tools are made and sold by… publishers.
> Why should we accept publishers to decide on what this limit should be? Currently it can be as high as $5000. For hosting a PDF. This is a total waste of (mostly public) money.
I'm not sure there's a good way of limiting how much companies are allowed to charge for a service.
What the funding bodies can do, however, is limit the amount of money in a grant that can be spent on publishing costs. That's far easier.
> No because as long as we permit to those publishers to exists and exercise their copyrights on prestigious journal title, their is a big inertia that incentivize researchers to publish with the publishers that hold the prestigious journal.
There is a big inertia, but currently the system makes big journals just as financially attractive as small journals or free places to publish because there's no upfront cost. If big journals cost a lot of money and small/free journals don't, then there's actually a force pushing towards cheaper options. It changes the customer to one that has more control (the funding body).
I'm also not sure what you're suggesting with "exercise their copyrights on prestigious journal title".
> Bibliometrics is the game of the publishers, and coincidentally, the biggest bibliometrics tools are made and sold by… publishers.
I think this comes from the fact that the metadata around publications is unfortunately often not available in a decent form, and the people who actually have the data that's necessary for analysing these kinds of things is publishers, so anyone who wants to do certain types of analysis will benefit from either being in or partnering with a publisher.
[disclaimer, working with article and grant data is what I do at Digital Science]
> I'm not sure there's a good way of limiting how much companies are allowed to charge for a service.
That of course depends on one's subjective notion of "good". There are multiple ways of doing it. I like the one you suggest if the amount we are talking about is a round zero.
> I'm also not sure what you're suggesting with "exercise their copyrights on prestigious journal title".
If the members of a journal's scientific board decide they want to go full real open access (with no costs for readers nor authors), they have to abandon to name of the journal and the associated impact factor and reputation that they build together with their work over the years, because the publisher owns the journal even though it is the board members who did all the work (as part of their job as researchers, paid by the state or a uni for example, not by the publisher).
That's one of the reseaons why the movement for open access and the movement against the use of bibliometrics should unite.
Good point. However, at some point publishers are going to up their charges, e.g. because of inflation. How will the cost increases be negotiated? Between the funding bodies and publishers behind closed doors? Or will they be imposed unilaterally by publishers, forcing academics to limit their submissions to pay-for open-access journals? This will bring into conflict the need for academics to publish in top venues to ensure career progression and the budget limitations posed by finding bodies. I suppose this could give momentum to the move towards completely free open access journals, but I'm sceptical given the risks for academics in not publishing at top venues. And although they get a hard time, I do believe there are some costs involved in running a journal despite all the free work they currently get from scientists, so I'm not sure completely free journals are realistic either anyway.
I'm not sure if there are any more details available yet, but I would worry about this turning into even more of a gravy train for publishers. I can't see for example the Dutch government being in any hurry to introduce any legislation that will threaten Elsevier's viability.
Nonetheless it is still a positive step that scientific findings look like becoming more readily accessible for the general public.
On the contrary, I think publishers have a lot to be worried about because this is a first step toward ending the legacy publishing model. Since journal publishers are middlemen that add almost no actual value to the publication process, their revenue stems from access control to published content. The new law removes a large amount of future content from their control, making them more reliant on open access fees. If other countries follow the EU's lead then eventually we will reach a critical mass of open content where the subscription model is no longer tenable. At such a point, stakeholders would be confronted with the obvious question: "Why are we paying a publishing company--which relies on volunteer authors, peer reviewers, and editors--to upload this content to the internet for free?". The next step is collective action to bypass the big publishers altogether, such as restricting grant money from going toward open access fees.
Clearly you - and many people commenting here - have no idea how the business model works and keep making these comments of: "don't mess with the free market."
Explained in a very simple way:
- Researchers do the heavy work, carrying out the research and writing up the articles: they don't get a cent from publishers (sometimes they even have to pay to publish).
- Reviewers, since of the most knowledgeable researchers in the area, take their time and knowledge to check what the researchers did: they also don't get a cent from publishers.
- Publishers, get all the work already done and charge money - stupid amounts of money like 30eur per article - to let other researchers see the works.
Researchers have nothing to lose by cutting the publisher. We are not wasting any money - on the contrary - for demanding free access.
Seriously, people should stop commenting themes they simply don't have a clue about.
One way or the other, to the extent that there will be a cost associated, it is going to be borne by taxpayers in open access (in fact, the taxpayers in the richest countries will probably subsidize the research of the poorer ones during collaboration).
But your point is very true - at some point we need the top publishers to be thrown out of business and for new ones to emerge AND the new publishers need to maintain costs which reflect true costs rather than the current 'what can we get away with?' prices they charge. Strangely, competition will be really good for this situation but it will not be so great for the researchers. (It would be like determining the quality of a webpage when no website has a PageRank higher than 3). Isn't that why there is so much hair pulling over this issue amongst researchers?
Isn't this ruling going to at least help a little in the sense that the researches now have a legal reason to push back on publishers who charge the exorbitant rates, plus as the sibling comment says, introduces a bit more transparency into the process?
I am interested in getting your thoughts on how to kickstart more competition amongst publishers.
Honestly, if academics still choose to pay the established journals thousands to host single pdfs, they're paying for the brand. If schools still choose to subscribe to those journals when all of the papers in them are available for free, they're paying for the brand. The publishers legitimately own the brand.
The goal is for all public scientific research to be available to the public for free, not to smash middle-men. If your goal is to smash middle-men, you'll be smashing all day and all night for the rest of your life, and middle-men are generally better at smashing than you are.
Also, if you look at your job, you may be a middle-man yourself. Most upper middle-class people are.
I'm not sure about that. Where I currently live we now have a regulation that we need to put every article open access on some server, while at the same time providing us with no guarantee or assistance that journals won't sue us. Meanwhile, journals keep requesting copyright transfer agreements.
Basically, our government currently forces us to commit copyright infringement or to end our careers and funding by not publishing in established journals.
In the good old spirit of our country, nobody does anything and the open access servers remain empty until the higher authorities get a basic grasp of the publishing reality. People are used to incompetent bosses around here.
It also means that researchers have to think about the cost of publishing which they before haven't. This should create a downward pressure on prize/upward pressure on quality by the publishers.
I sometimes wonder if companies like Elsevier are the patent trolls of the research publishing industry - with the same chilling effect on the spread of innovation. [1]
It will be interesting to see how this affects the quality of reviewing. I think the defendants of the current system (who usually say someone has to bear the cost of the review process) are going to be rudely surprised when the academic community embraces this with gusto. The parallel with OSS is interesting - somewhat in the same spirit as the programming community embraced open source, I think the benefit of open access is that the researcher evaluates the tradeoff between 'capturing value' vs 'making a difference', without worrying about the external factor of 'what does this external entity, which provided very little in terms of constructive input when the work was being done, allow me to do (with regards to publishing openly)?'.
But then again, I could be completely wrong, especially in domains like the physical sciences where I don't know how the incentives align. I hope it works out well, and that soon this is the just the norm in all countries.
> someone has to bear the cost of the review process
Maybe you are aware of it, but this argument is bogus in any case, because reviewing is unpaid labor. You can make an argument that someone has to organize the review process, but publishers usually don't pay for that process (except paying token amounts to an editor for some journals).
The cost of the review process in this particular two sided marketplace (which publishing is - how do you decide which journal to send your paper to?) is not just the unpaid labor of the reviewers, but rather the establishment of the credentials and authority which the journals build up over time, which basically drove down the cost of reviewing to be much smaller than if it were simply a free for all.
To see this in action: Many OSS software projects have trouble attracting quality contributions because they are simply not well known. To the community as a whole, the cost of soliciting contributions is not merely the difficulty of modifying the software, but in addition the promotion of the project itself to the point where the only costs have to do with making said modifications.
I could have worded it better (maybe cost of the review + credentialing process), but I think this is going to be the pain point in open access, just like even folks here on HN say that OSS sometimes resembles the wild west.
I think you'd be amazed how small most of the scientific communities in certain areas of research are. If you have the names of a few well-known researchers on the editorial board or in the list of reviewers of an open-access/electronic journal, this will instanty establish its credentials and authority. After all, researchers care mostly about the quality of the work and the results, and not so much about the branding.
To be honest, I don't really know why this hasn't picked up yet. Maybe the scientific community is not very easy to get organized, as researchers are pretty busy with research, teaching, writing grant proposals, serving on committees, acting as reviewers, etc. There have been some attempts in CS with various success, though.
Another factor may be that most research (at least in CS) gets presented at conferences, gets published in conference proceedings first, and then journal publications are mostly an afterthought, and in many cases are skipped entirely. Organizing a conference with open-access proceedings may not be as cheap and easy as setting up a web-site and getting a few well-known names to serve as reviewers...
Plenty of rankings of universities are done based on research output, based on upon where publications are, often based on rankings that are rarely updated of journals and conferences.
There's not much credential setting. I was getting proposals for reviewing papers shortly after my first one published, and honestly, it wasn't an incredibly nice one that could make me a name.
Publishers just coast on their current name, and are in a winner takes all market where the best authors will try to publish at the most famous journals. They are purely rent seekers, and won't go out without some external intervention.
I believe we both agree. However, when evaluating the costs of the mediating entities such as Elsevier the assumption is that you will be starting from scratch if those entities were to disappear tomorrow, and you will not simply be usurping their brand names/prestige/authority etc. The publishers may be coasting today on their current names - but note the comment in an adjacent thread [1] which talks about new publications and their general challenges - there was a real effort at some point to build up a name they can coast on, and that cost was probably not trivial.
In fact, even though I started the Elsevier bashing in this thread :-) - until we find out what the replacement system looks like I think we may not even completely see all the costs involved. I don't think the existence of the internet is suddenly going to turn the research publication process into a very resource efficient system.
The rent they are coasting on is dictated by government and NGO bureaucracy. Until universities and grant distributors stop judging researchers mainly by the amount they publish on Elsevier journals, no newer publication will become prestigious. In fact, a few years ago I was doubting newer publication would ever get as far as they did.
Besides, research publication does have hight costs. But nearly all of that cost is not beared by publishers.
> The cost of the review process in this particular two sided marketplace (which publishing is - how do you decide which journal to send your paper to?) is not just the unpaid labor of the reviewers, but rather the establishment of the credentials and authority which the journals build up over time, which basically drove down the cost of reviewing to be much smaller than if it were simply a free for all.
This is a valid point, but why should the commercial publisher reap all the benefit of this authority and brand value? The brand value was built by researchers publishing high quality work and doing high quality reviews.
Further, why couldn't just the same thing happen with non-commercial free open access journals?
Right now, I am outside the academic system, so obviously I only speak for myself, plus based on my knowledge from many years ago. Maybe the whole process has changed drastically - so please correct me if things have changed.
Even today, every single piece of publication already has multiple choices: a) be uploaded as an unreviewed PDF on the authors' websites - this grants the paper absolutely no credibility obviously, except it may have been written by a respected authority - and definitely you get no benefit as a researcher b) be sent for review, become subjected to copyright, but on most occasions where an unformatted (i.e. preprint) can be uploaded on the website with the express understanding that no one would ever cite that version because it is possible for content to change from that version to the final print version and c) be sent for 'stamping' as the authorized final version, at which point the trouble usually starts.
As you progress along each step, you are basically getting additional benefits - they are somewhat intangible, but for researchers these benefits do translate directly into the currency that they care about - acknowledgment of their work as a part of the citation graph (which then translates into career benefits). So no, the commercial publisher does not "reap all the benefit of this authority and brand value". The commercial publisher does reap all the tangible monetary benefits of course.
Very few authors would willingly submit themselves to the painful process of paper review if they felt someone else was getting ALL the benefits.
Your question could be phrased as whether the publishers get an unfair share of the benefits - yes they do. And do they use some strong arm tactics to preserve their ability to get gobs of money for effectively very little work - yes they do.
And "couldn't just the same thing happen with non-commercial free open access journals?" I think it will, I just feel the road will be quite bumpy until we get there.
I will assume for a bit that the vast majority of participants in the review system are academics. So, one of the main reasons the publishing process moves at glacial speeds is because many reviewers are time constrained academics. Nothing in the open access process will change that fact, but many people will be affected by the shift to open access - suddenly you don't even have an organization that can be held nominally accountable for speeding it up. Academics very rarely like being told what to do, and at the slightest sign of dissent against their handling of the review process, are more likely to stop contributing their efforts towards organizing because the rewards are not very tangible.
The OSS ecosystem faces similar issues and still gets a lot of work done at impressive speed - but remember that usually the top contributors in OSS have immediate positive feedback in terms of the adoption of the software (at least) but often much more tangible benefits such as acknowledgement of their efforts in public and VISIBLE forums, sometimes even employment. Very little of this is true for participants in the review process.
Yes, improvements in search will help, but the costs won't go down that easily. In Google's case, the initial seeding of page rank was quite manual. And then think of the cost of upkeep - people are trying to game search engines continuously, Google has to update its algorithms on a consistent basis, content farms have profited enormously at various points of time and needed to be literally programmed against, and finally Google guards the actual search algorithm closely.
In the research domain, solving these problems would actually be even harder (in my view). How do you know if you found the best paper, or just the paper which is the best match for your keywords? At least Google has a feedback mechanism - someone stays a long time on a given webpage if it is very relevant to what they are looking for. This is not a good metric obviously, it might happen on a research paper simply because it is too obscure :-)
Well, you could always look at citations. And I don't think they are as easy to game as links between general websites, because in research at least the authors publish using their own names (and you don't want to get a bad rep for gaming the system).
With the disclaimer that this is an anecdote and not data:
You would be surprised at how easily a winners win situation happens in research. The citation based search would reinforce it. And while the gaming may not be search engine focused, I think getting the best papers via algorithmic methods can omit the crown jewels through less insidious (but quite common) issues such as citation graphs which orient in the direction of the flow of funding.
But you say, maybe winners win for a reason. This is only personal experience, but the single most profound, creative paper I ever read during my years of research was written by a lone wolf (i.e. no collaborators) in a somewhat unknown institution who turned out to be a sort of one hit wonder. This person's h-index may very well have been exactly 1 at that time. I honestly think algorithmic methods of searching for literature would have skipped past that paper.
You could make the case, though, that a thorough literature survey should be as exhaustive as possible and not omit ANYTHING. Well, very few people are that thorough - and even when they are, there is a tendency of reading papers from the most popular authors first. I am just glad I did my work before the days of Google Scholar becoming the de facto starting point, and I did not have the bias of a pre-ranked list.
I think that is the actual fear: I was able to find this crown jewel precisely because the publishing process at that period was more centralized (although quite likely also less competitive), and that paper was eventually published at a pre-eminent conference - which is how it came to my attention. With a search-engine driven open access, I think this lone wolf would have had a harder time getting that fantastic piece of work in front of a big audience because many of the common signals would have been too weak.
With all that said, when open access becomes more pervasive, great search technology will be a big part of the cost reduction and I definitely look forward to that.
Good point, but if you make the comparison with the web, you can find the more popular pages using a search engine, and you can find those lesser known jewels by using services like HN :)
Seriously, everyone from the reviewer to the AE to the editor is doing this for free in almost every case. Or not for free exactly, but not for money either. For academics, reputation is the coin of the realm. Academic publishers have tried (quite successfully, until the last couple of years) to corner the market on prestige. This means they can get academics to do all kind of work, without spending any actual dollars.
I submit that it is immoral to review for a for-profit journal without receiving appropriate compensation[1]. Doing so and then complaining about the extortionist behavior of the established publishers is also hypocritical and/or stupid.
Attempts to boycott a publisher or two have happened before, but they are useless. Scientists are hurting themselves by not publishing in the high ranking journals or by not reading them. Boycotting their exploitative review process, however, would hit them where it hurts and cost very little.
[1] Uncompensated review services for any non-traditional journal are equally immoral, but that's another topic.
> I sometimes wonder if companies like Elsevier are the patent trolls of the research publishing industry
I assume that 50 years ago the cost of getting information out to people was quite significant. printing, distribution, logistics... a single researcher wouldn't be able to deal with lots and lots of publishing institutions efficiently, and a single institution (except for the largest ones) wouldn't be able to publish efficiently. at my uni school, they had 2 geometry professors, and they perhaps published something every few years. no need for the school to publish its own geometry journal. middle-men such as Elsevier emerged to provide a useful service, achieving efficiencies of scale on both ends, providing a publishing channel for smaller schools and a discovery service for researchers. kind of the same as why travel agents existed. it was too difficult for a single person to deal with all the hotels and airlines in the world, and they didn't even know where to go and ask about that stuff.
Today, the cost of getting the information out to people being insignificant, they are an obstacle instead of being an enabler, adding very little value to what people can do directly. On the other hand, as long as they can keep the effective monopoly going, they can milk the market. Travel agents didn't have a chokehold on a market, and got easily disrupted by web sites. Elsevier requires regulators to step in.
It's not just the cost of reviews though. Most new journals take decades to become break-even, they're typically subsidized by cashcow journals (big names with good reputations which bring in solid revenue).
Launching a new journal is a non-trivial process, you have to convince people to publish in it, you have to convince peer reviewers that it's worth their effort, etc. You have to have a marketing and sales teams that gets it into the hands and minds of researchers/libraries/etc. Then follows several decades of brand building before you make any real money. Many journals don't make it and die and publishers have to swallow the losses.
In practice OA has other solutions (author pays) to fund this, but it's far from a free lunch.
Because I don't generally believe altruism is a thing in politics, the majority of the article is just fluff and smoke. Scientific literacy? What a crock. Scientific papers aren't for boosting the kind of basic scientific literacy the links to. They are generally written for an already literate audience (putting aside the poor quality of a great deal of science and scientific papers). The overriding pragmatic motive here is hinted at in the following sentence:
"Ultimately, this decision comes as a result of a meeting by the Competitiveness Council,which includes the ministers of Science, Innovation, Trade, and Industry."
EU science, being what it is, needs to be more competitive. One way to become competitive in the face American or even Japanese competition is to take the open source/free software route and make research freely available. This makes the research more accessible, unburdens relatively poor European universities from having to pay expensive journal memberships, increases the ability of EU institutions to collaborate, and allows the EU to attract collaborators from abroad by removing financial thresholds. And because science in the US has stronger ties to industry, it plays an important role in determining the economic prowess of the US. Poor entrepreneurs can also benefit from the move. The EU is likely aiming in a similar direction (though I personally know members of European academia who dislike the collaboration between academia and industry).
I wonder if this will mean that European scientist will only be allowed to publish in open access journals or if it will be sufficient if copies of the papers are made freely available. The APS, who publishes the Physical Review journals which are some of the most important in physics, for instance already allows authors and their employers to post their papers online free of charge [http://journals.aps.org/rmp/copyrightFAQ.html#post]. In my field everybody already puts every paper onto the arxiv anyway, so open access is almost a lived practice.
IANAL, but to me, the wording “must be freely accessible to everyone” in the press release means free copies should be OK. As long as those are exact and complete copies.
Note that the current publishing arrangements for "open access" can often involve substantial fees paid by the authors to the publishers. Arxiv is definitely an exception.
Precisely. European articles may be "free to read", but most of them will probably not be free to publish.
For-profit publishers will probably appreciate this: it means that, while European institutions will probably still pay subscription fees (to read foreign research), they will now also have to pay extortionate open-access fees when publishing. In addition to paying researchers to produce and peer-review the research...
I don't understand why this comment is downvoted. What a3_nm says is very important. There are multiple forms of open access, and the EU is being lobbied by publishers to push for their idea of open access, sometimes called "gold open access", in which the authors pay to publish.
This is a really bad model as it makes money part of an equation which should only be governed by scientific concerns: should this paper be published or not?
Now, researchers is poor countries may be able to access existing research but they won't be able to publish their findings…
And even thought it kind of solve the problem of mass access to scientific publications, it doesn't deal with the fact that a lot of public money is going in the pockets of private academic publishers for no good reasons. With this model, research is still paid for at least 3 times (for doing it, reviewing it, and now publishing it instead of accessing it) by universities and research institutions, while publishers are making an awful lot money for hosting PDFs. This money which could be used to do more research, as only a tiny part of it would be necessary to support the necessary arXiv-like infrastructure.
> an equation which should only be governed by scientific concerns: should this paper be published or not?
"Will this paper increase my impact factor or not?" It now becomes literally necessary to spend money to increase the metric used to determine if you get any money.
> Now, researchers is poor countries may be able to access existing research but they won't be able to publish their findings…
Well they definitely can publish, but they will have to pay a decent amount to publish in a big journal. Grants will include money for this purpose.
edit - I'm not sure why this was downvoted. There are free places you can publish work, and grants that require open access include money for publishing costs, certainly the grants my wife has worked on included open access publishing money.
> they definitely can publish, but they will have to pay a decent amount to publish in a big journal
Yeah, okay.
This is exactly what I'm saying this system is wrong. The decision to publish a given paper in a big, notorious journal should only be based on the scientific qualities and contribution of the paper. Not on the money (grants or not) that their authors have.
And by the way, grants, and generally speaking project-based funding, are not a good way to distribute money for research. It is okay to fund big experiment requiring a lot of money on project-based grants, but it is totally poisonous to need grants for daily operations (paying people's salaries and publishing being typical daily operations). Research can't work long term if even the basic necessities for a lab to just exist depends on grant money attributed with respect to current trends and other random factors.
Preprint services like arXiv are not taken seriously by academic hiring and promotion commitees. The work has not been peer reviewed. Preprints do count for scientific priority however.
The current issue of Science says about five disciplines are trying to imitate the physics arXiv. There is much resistance in some sectors.
The EU hasn't "announced" anything. There was a meeting between several influential people connected to the EU, and they reached an informal agreement on something related to freely accessible research. The "announcement" is nothing but the minutes of that meeting.
The EU announces? Didn't the EU announce that EU roaming should be free by 2017? Last thing I read that now this has a dozen limitations, including a time limitation of 90days and only if the SIM has been used in the home country for a while. Ok. Now lets see how this turns out.
Doesn't that just have the effect that everyone now has to pay for scientific articles? I mean, as a scientist, this benefits me, but I can see why your average Joe wouldn't be happy to pay taxes so he can read articles he can't understand...
That's a little elitist of you. There are lots of people outside academia who can understand and benefit from academic publications.
Consider, for example, somebody thinking of creating a startup doing research on what the bleeding edge of a field is. Or a former student considering re-entering academic research checking up on how the field has progressed since they left it. Or simply an independent researcher trying to understand if what they've created is novel and publishable.
Not to mention the many average Joes who have already done some important work by reading open access papers in fields simply because they suddenly find causes to became motivated to go past the average Joe level.
And under the section called "A regret: Not pushing for open-access" he says:
"My hope is that tenure will provide me opportunities to steadily shift computer science and medicine toward high-quality, high-impact open access venues.
The reason I feel especially ashamed over my behavior is that in the course of my research for my son, I have used my privilege as an academic to punch through paywalls with impunity to reach medical papers.
In a damning irony, even this paper is behind a paywall.
I realize that few patients or parents have the ability to do what I did, and they never will, until all of academic medicine goes open access.
I'm saying average. I wouldn't pay for biology studies because I don't understand them, so I don't see why an accountant should be paying for CS studies he doesn't understand. I'm just trying to warn about having taxpayers pay for things that realistically 95% of them are never gonna use.
That's a fair point, but it doesn't invalidate the parent's point. Ultimately, there will be far more laypeople who cannot understand the articles than budding, academically inclined entrepreneurs.
> Doesn't that just have the effect that everyone now has to pay for scientific articles?
Everyone was already paying for them before. The money that used to be collected on the sale of articles has never gone to finance the scientists making the work.
Really? That's all it takes? With all of the bungling in recent years, they have a long way to go before "pride" and "European institutions" can appear in the same sentence. You should also think through the full consequences of this move. The idea of free papers is nice, but it's not a fairy tale victory of good over evil. Also, political motives are worth considering. Science in the EU, given what it is, may wish to become more competitive in the face of American science and attract collaboration in more or less the same way open source and free software has.
Same things that happens when you have to apply other EU regulations like the "Right to be Forgotten".
What most likely will happen is that there will be a geoblocked EU repository/ies which will provide free access to research material.
Also it's important to note that only research which has been funded with public funds is applicable for this and depending on under which "Open Access" model they'll end up operating under there might be some additional restrictions.
Well it's the question on who this "regulation" is going to target, if it is going to target publishers then it makes sense for publishers that work within the EU to simply allow Open Access from within the EU only, pretty much every content delivery solution has geo-blocking built in, so publishers already have this capability.
If it's going to target institutions/grant recipients then the only thing they need to do is allocate funds to pay for Open Access which is a bit silly and it doesn't solve the issue, if anything it can make it even worse because publishers could then squeeze authors for even more money because now the public is the one who pays the ransom.
After the final recommendation the European Commission has proposed about the abolition of roaming charges [1] I'm very skeptical about this type of announcement. Still publishers won't probably be able to lobby as hard as telcos though
Some studies have concluded that there is now more social mobility in Europe than in the US. Now I see more and more "bellwether" laws and executive actions coming from Europe first. Does this mean that the US, being at the top of the hierarchy and in charge of the world's largest empire, has now ceded innovation to the up and coming powers, much as Britain did to the United States in the 19th and 20th century?
Please provide a quote and explain why you interpreted my comment as a criticism? Once you do so, then explain why your interpretation is more applicable than an interpretation as a non-criticism.
Please note that it was phrased as a question. So, apparently you assumed that the question was rhetorical, and carried on in that vein, rather than responding to a genuine question, even after a hint. Please feel free to go back and re-read the question properly as simply a question.
Shift cost to author and grant agencies then. A couple of studies I have read says it costs about $1500 to review edit and publish an article. In addition several thousand dolars of volunteer time is provided by editors and reviewers. If the subscribers wont be paying, then costs will shifted to the author. Some free online journals already only charge the author.
Because the journals held by a few global players (Elsevier, Springer, Oxford Journals) are the most prestigious ones, and a researcher's career and funding hinges almost solely on the number of his publications/year in prestigious journals.
This is such an incredible feat that I just want to trow a note here so I can reference in the future to show off. If the metric of global innovation has an exponential power, this act alone will likely increase that power by 10%
The same people who demand this open access also advocate research evaluation criteria that mostly count the number of publications in top journals owned by Springer, Elsevier, etc.
Yes, but America is not a reference to a continent. That would be North America or South America. (I suppose you could call the super continent just "America" but most call it "The Americas" instead.)
Clearly the term "America" either disambiguates to a continent or a country, and most assume the country.
"Europe," on the other hand, really is a continent, so the term has a completely different meaning than the EU, although it would be reasonable for the two to be synonymous eventually, they clearly are not currently.
Anyway, it seems reasonable to use the term America as shorthand, instead of U.S.A., as it's pretty obvious what you mean.
And in the description of the United States of America:
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America
That's incredibly stupid. The publishing of scientific papers has a cost, in terms of editorial service, proofreading, typesetting.
This cost will be paid by scientists, rather than by the readers. In other words, the papers will be free to read, but won't be free to publish.
I know as a fact that smaller research groups struggle to pay current publishing fees, and as a matter of fact the EU decision will increase them, making the situation worse.
Publishers now don't even do editorial service. They give you a template you must follow and the actual (free) reviewers tell you if you write good english or not.
Whenever I published an article most often I got my references corrected, some grammar errors where spotted during the publishing process (I am not a native English speaker), also my articles are professionally typeset.
Maybe we work in different fields, don't assume your point of view automatically extends to every field of science.
Sorry, perhaps this differs from field to field but at least in mine what you say is patently false.
Journals have no linguistic editing, no proofreading, and the typesetting is outsourced to India - at least Springer does so, as I know from personal interaction with the typesetters. Articles must be delivered more or less camera-ready according to the journal style. Editorial boards and all editors, as well as as reviewers work for free.
If you have a research group that actually pays for being published, then that's called "grey literature" or even worse, just plain self-publication, and it's worth nothing. It can even have a negative impact on your CV.
Your last sentence is completely false, at least as far as the physical sciences are concerned.
The most prestigious journals have a publication fee. I know for sure that Nature Communications has a pretty hefty fee, more than 5000$, google it. And, trust me, publishing there has a pretty positive impact on your CV.
The same concept applies to all open-access journals, including the most prestigious ones.
You may want to revise your definition of "grey literature".
So don't assume that what applies to humanities applies to every research field.
As you may or may not know, on Nature Communications (and on many other journals of Nature Publishing Group) you can only publish open-access, so that's effectively a fee you have to pay to publish on Nature Communications.
You pay, you get your paper published. You don't pay it, your paper is not published.
As you see, your definition of grey literature includes one of the most prestigious journals in the physical sciences. Time to revise it! Better late than never!
> Don't come to my university.
If I do I hope that at least your colleagues will be able to see beyond their nose, and will know that what's standard in humanities may not be standard in other fields.
> Open access fees are very expensive everywhere.
Which is exactly my point. The EU announces that all papers will be free to read, so open access? Someone must pay. The price will be paid by research groups, smaller ones may not be able to sustain it.
I didn't down-vote you, because you ask a valid question.
However, free newspapers and travel sounds good to me.
If all/most resources were free it would then be just a matter of deciding which were worth spending your time on.
There doesn't really seem to be much negative, other than current business models fading away. However, I don't think most people would care much if all businesses did close and were replaced with a different economic model. (Not that I have one in mind, just that I don't think we need to be attached to the current business model)
The EU provides a lot of funding for science projects across the union, this funding comes from member states, who raise money through taxation.
So in effect you have EU citizens paying for research to be done, but have to double-dip on the papers or artefacts that come out as a result of the research.
This initiative is designed to make publicly funded research.....public, and not held behind a paywall provided by a private entity.
