Researcher illegally shares millions of science papers free online to spread knowledge
Excerpt:
I'm honestly not sure what to think of this. I very much like the idea of free and open access to science and research for everyone. Certainly the high prices charged by publishers stifled a lot of their educational value and the ability of researchers to utilize them; and I wonder just how much of that is pure profit over and above operating costs. Widespread and easy access to education is of vital importance to any society; and restricting information to the moneyed elite seems a highly regressive and ultimately harmful practice.
But on the other hand, widespread piracy could certainly impact the ability of these journals to continue to function. Journals exist for a reason, and publishing them costs money. Without the ability to meet operating costs, they will not be able to provide the peer review, editing, and curation needed to ensure that the information they provide is of reliably high quality and dependability.
I do believe that the free and open exchange of information benefits everyone; but I am not so sure this is the best way to go about providing it. The boycott mentioned in the quoted piece above seems a more reasonable approach, especially if it can be expanded.
Excerpt:
Quote:
|
If it sounds like a modern day Robin Hood struggle, that's because it kinda is. But in this story, it's not just the poor who don't have access to scientific papers - journal subscriptions have become so expensive that leading universities such as Harvard and Cornell have admitted they can no longer afford them. Researchers have also taken a stand - with 15,000 scientists vowing to boycott publisher Elsevier in part for its excessive paywall fees. Don't get us wrong, journal publishers have also done a whole lot of good - they've encouraged better research thanks to peer review, and before the Internet, they were crucial to the dissemination of knowledge. But in recent years, more and more people are beginning to question whether they're still helping the progress of science. In fact, in some cases, the 'publish or perish' mentality is creating more problems than solutions, with a growing number of predatory publishers now charging researchers to have their work published - often without any proper peer review process or even editing. |
I'm honestly not sure what to think of this. I very much like the idea of free and open access to science and research for everyone. Certainly the high prices charged by publishers stifled a lot of their educational value and the ability of researchers to utilize them; and I wonder just how much of that is pure profit over and above operating costs. Widespread and easy access to education is of vital importance to any society; and restricting information to the moneyed elite seems a highly regressive and ultimately harmful practice.
But on the other hand, widespread piracy could certainly impact the ability of these journals to continue to function. Journals exist for a reason, and publishing them costs money. Without the ability to meet operating costs, they will not be able to provide the peer review, editing, and curation needed to ensure that the information they provide is of reliably high quality and dependability.
I do believe that the free and open exchange of information benefits everyone; but I am not so sure this is the best way to go about providing it. The boycott mentioned in the quoted piece above seems a more reasonable approach, especially if it can be expanded.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RwO3xS
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire