This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Take a stand for public access to taxpayer funded research

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 7 by mmurray

Comment 5 by pzkrakz :

Comment 2 by Jos Gibbons :

Haven't we already achieved this with ArXiv?

Yes, for the physics and math communities, but there are great strides being made in other disciplines, such as the cell and molecular sciences, that are relegated to paid subscription. Out of bounds for most. ArXiv and PLoS are great examples of how things should be. It turns the potentially corrupt peer review process on it's head as well, which is useful.

Can you explain what you mean by potentially corrupt peer review and how the ArXiv and PLoS change this ?

PLoS as I understand it is open access where the author pays to have the paper published. I don't see how Open Access really solves the problem that the researchers and the universities pay for the whole publications process and then pay for access. In the old model they pay to read the article and in the open access model they pay to have it published. You've just moved the cost to a different point in the publication process. This brings other pitfalls such as making it difficult for researchers who don't have grants.

Basically all journals should be electronic and charge subscriptions that cover the real cost which should be pretty minimal once you get profits and shareholders out of the game.


Sun, 27 May 2012 06:04:34 UTC | #943771