Interesting perspective. How does this square w/ the fact that most universities are largely underwritten by taxpayers? Or the perspective that publishing information/ research that was paid for w/ tax dollars is a matter of partial repayment of that debt?
Recent regulations require anyone publishing research funded by the NIH to post it to their digital archive no later than 12 months after publication. They have guidelines requiring the author to insist on copyright changes with publishers. Journals pretty much have to go along because all the big boys have NIH money.
All in all, I think the NIH is probably justified in going this way. Subscriptions are so high that too many little players can’t maintain a library. The current publishing house of cards looks to be collapsing.
Correct. The information produced by the University costs a whole heck of a lot more than free. Student tuition, state and federal subsidies, and public and private grant money all contribute to research and development.
The whole scheme is upside down. Of course those who pay for work are entitled to own that work but not in academia apparently.
Nature simply takes advantage of a situation. In order for researchers to get noticed, they must publish. Nature serves that function. In turn, Nature charges universities and other researchers to read that which has been published. It is a horrible cycle that only reinforced mediocrity since being published is what generates credibility, not so much the uniqueness of the ideas, hypothesis or data created.
But we all knew that already.