1 hr doc.. site: https://paywallthemovie.com/
[will use n for narrator guy]
paywall – the business of scholarship
a lot of academic research was paid for w public funding.. but public access is often restricted by expensive paywalls
aria chernik (@ariachernik): uni’s are about educating humans and there is literally no reason to keep info from people..t
aria: there is nothing gained other than money and power and things that as people we should want to push up against.. a lot of money.. it’s a huge huge business. bn’s of dollars..t
n: academic publishing is a 25.2 bn dollar a year industry
1 min – jason steinhauer (@JasonSteinhauer): one thing we learn as we move thru history is humans are really bad at predicting the future
2 min – karla cosgriff (@tingumhere): the scholarly publishing industry (elsevier) makes about a 35-40% profit margin.. walmart is making around 3% and walmart’s like this evil giant for a lot of people.. but it’s 3% compared to 35%.. wealth management (bank of america) is around 21%.. toyota is around 12%..t
karla: how is it ok for this whole industry to be making so much a profit margin when there really aren’t any inputs that they have to pay for
3 min – kamran naim (@kamrannaim): i’ve honestly never heard of corps that have profit margins that are that big (35%)
darius cuplinskas (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/darius-cuplinskas): in most other normal lines of business.. that kind of profit margin is the sign of some kind of monopoly logic work
nathan hall (@prof_nch): even though people not in academia may not be reading a lot of these articles.. may not find them useful.. they are still paying for them.. your tax dollars go toward govts who then subsidize uni’s who then provide funds to libraries.. who pay publishers thru subscriptions fees.. the journals and the publishers are getting your money.. everyone is paying into the system.. and the people benefitting the most are publishers..t
library ness.. open it up for us.. but part of the money bin perpetuation
n: everybody deserves profit margin
dang.. money is the problem here..
n: but how can journals.. have a profit larger than some of the biggest tech co’s
4 min – john adler (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Adler): publishing is so profitable because the workers don’t get paid.. what other industry.. i can think of none.. in which the primary workers.. in this case the authors/reviewers get paid nothing.. profit margins in many respects in the publishing industry are second to none and a few years back i compared them to fb and i realized.. they’re about the equivalent of the most successful software co’s today in terms of margins.. of course.. fb has virtually infinite scale and there’s arguably no more successful co in the last 5-10 yrs.. so publishing is obscenely profitable and because of it the publishers are in no rush to see the world change.. t
richard price (founder academia edu) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Price_(entrepreneur)): there is a real question as to why the margins are so high.. 35% is higher than google’s margin.. that is simply because the pricing power.. if you are elsevier.. you have proprietary access.. can’t say.. elsevier is too expensive.. we’ll just go w wiley this year.. you kind of need all of them.. you can charge as much as you want.. the uni’s might pretend to balk.. but the reality is that faculty have to have access.. that’s a very powerful position for the businesses
ugh to academia edu
5 min – stuart shieber (@pmphlt): here’s a problem in the market.. the market exhibits what sometimes called a moral hazard.. doesn’t really have anything to do with morality.. but an econ term.. moral hazard comes about when the purchasers of a good are not the consumers of the good.. what is the good here in a traditional publishing market – it’s access.. readership access.. the consumers are people like me who want to read the articles.. the purchasers though are not me.. i don’t tend to subscribe to journals.. the harvard library spends huge amounts of money subscribing to a huge range of journals.. so i’m pricing sensitive to these journals.. because i don’t have to pay the bill
6 min – heather joseph (@hjoseph): the money is real.. academic publishing for journals is a 10 bn dollar a year revenue producing industry.. this is not chump change this is a significant amount of money.. when you think about a profit margin of 30-40%.. taken out of that that could be put back into the research enterprise.. whether more resources.. paying more researchers.. making college more affordable.. that financial aspect is a symptom of just how out of alignment this commercial model is in trying to stay relevant in the research process
imagine if we quit spending time/energy on money ing at all.. imagine what we could do then.. imagine how relevant we would all be..
7 min – istván rev (https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/people/istv-n-r-v): usually we don’t think about the relationship between the profit of such co’s on the one hand and the ever increasing tuition fees.. but it’s also part of the story.. t.. we’re not talking about a marginal problem.. not talking about the internal issues of the scholars.. we are talking about very basic social problems.. what will be the future of our societies
peter suber (@petersuber): journal prices have been increasing way above the level of inflation and well above the rate of the growth of library budgets.. not just for years but for decades.. and it’s been a catastrophe
8 min – martin r kalfatovic (@bhlprogdirector): the academy writ large has not really examined the full cost of scholarly communication.. it’s been really the library’s budgets that have born the brunt of that.. and we’ve often had to go hat in hand to the admin to get increases for ie: sci-tech-med journals that have just had a rapid increase in price for whatever reasons the publishers may claim for that
n: for profit to go up.. scarcity has to prevail.. welcome to the world of paywalls blocking research
9 min – lars bjornshauge (@elbjoern0603): students graduate.. get their masters.. flow into those spin-off co’s.. and suddenly they discover that they could not get access to the research results that they needed.. because they were no longer affiliated w the uni.. they came knocking on my door.. and i had to tell them that as a librarian i was in this awkward position that i had to block non affiliated users for access to publicly funded research and that is completely contrary to the mission of a library and a librarian.. t.. so that was an eye opener
dwight parker – (working on phd took break.. selling cars).. once outside program same resources not available.. govt funded w taxpayer money..
10 min – dwight: the money just corrupts everything.. the science gets lost..t
tom callaway – my wife had pulmonary aneurism.. so i do the thing i do.. get on internet and do the research.. and you hit all these research paywalls.. there’s not enough info in front of each one to tell if it would be relevant to her.. i can’t afford that.. but.. it could save her life
11 min – cable green (@cgreen): the one reason we have research is we’re trying to solve problems in the world.. cure diseases; figure out clean water; how to take poverty to zero; how to wipe out disease states;.. and if you want to do that.. we’ve got to make sure that everybody has access.. not just rich countries.. not just people who have phds.. but everybody gets to read scientific research.. think about it.. and then contribute their ideas.. and when large portions of the population don’t have access to research the odds of us solving big problems are significantly lower..t
12 min – jake orlowitz (wikipedia library) (@JakeOrlowitz): the publishers have been part of curating the scholarly dialogue for centuries and in that respect they are vital.. at the same time.. we have a global population that.. the vast majority does not have access to research about.. current developments in science, medicine, culture, tech, environ science, .. and are faced w the prospect of trying to make sense of the world w/o access to the *best knowledge about it and in some sense that is tragic
totally agree w the tragedy.. would question whether it’s always the *best knowledge about it
roshan kumar karn (@rosankarn) (med dr in nepal): western unis are really great funds for their libraries.. they have the capacity to purchase the journals.. give access to students but in developing countries libraries are really poor.. so you eventually end up doing everything on your own w/o any support from the uni
arturo sanchez pineda (cern) (https://atlas.cern/authors/arturo-s-nchez-pineda): many papers i get i have to pay for them.. just give credit card to intenet
n: from that lack of access a movement has sprung out and that movement is called open access
amy brand (@amy_brand)(director mit press): in its simplest form.. open access if free and unencumbered access to info
karla: very simply.. is a way to democratize info.. to reduce disparity and promote equality
mark hahnel (@MarkHahnel): there’s lots of *academics out who can build on top of the research that’s gone before.. if they have access towards the research.. you might have some of the **greatest minds of our generation living out in central african republic who don’t have access to any of the content.. so what can they .. ***how can they help move things further faster.. and i think that that is what open access is all about.. it’s ****allowing people who want access to the knowledge to have access to the knowledge and take it further
****beyond that.. we could be accessing/sharing more than what are in academic papers.. ie: augmenting interconnectedness via 2 convers.. as infra.. because the writing/assuming of academic paper ness.. is a paywall
14 min – rick anderson (dean uni of utah)(@looptopper): i think being passionate about open access is great.. where i get concerned is when somebody’s passion for open access leads them to be unwilling to think about the costs of it as well as the benefits of it.. i get concerned when open access becomes a religion
much like uni/academic ness becomes a religion..?
rick: or when it becomes a halo that requires you to love whatever it’s placed over.. if we lose our ability or worse.. our willingness ..to think as critically and analytically about an open access model as we do about a toll access model.. then we are no longer operating in the realm of reason and science.. we’re now operating in the realm of religion.. it’s important not to confuse it w science
and money has what to do with that..? money is the religion we need to be concerned about
15 min – john wilbanks (@wilbanks): i can see how .. esp if you’re on the other side it could appear religious.. there’s a lot of belief for sure.. it’s a belief based movement for a lot of people.. but a lot of the most powerful pieces of the movement come the biomed lit .. from parents/family who can’t access it.. and those take on an element of witness/testimony that is religious.. there’s a lot of power in witness/testimony.. movements take on all kinds
16 min – jeff spies (@JeffSpies): for me why i’m doing this is because of the benefits to research efficiency.. if you said closed science was the way to do that.. i would be closed science.. that research efficiency comes w increases in quality/inclusivity/diversity/innovation.. just having more people that can do something is a benefit.. we have big problems to solve..t
indeed.. begs we set 7bn people free so that 1\ can solve them 2\ quit creating them
tech as it could be..
vitek tracz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitek_Tracz): i was involved in the early days of open access in life sciences.. our hope was that open access would not only bring the very significant change in access.. it seemed completely crazy that most of research is not available to most of the people who need it..t
even crazier that we’re not listening to every voice.. everyday.. now that we have the means for that
17 min – brian nosek (@BrianNosek): meeting w grad students before my lecture at uni of belgrade.. and almost everyone in the room was working on implicit cognition (for their thesis) which was amazing that so many were.. so i said.. why are all of you doing this.. the immediate response was.. we can access the lit in this area.. i was blown away by that.. that they made decisions on what to study based on what they could access.. t
dang man.. why so surprised.. that’s school.. that’s what we teach in school..
18 min – scott plutchak (director digi data curation birmingham): when i was directing the library and we had made major cuts in our subscriptions.. we did focus groups to see how people were coping w that.. one that stood out to me was a young md phd student.. i need to read widely but my ability to read widely is constrained by what you have access to.. so my dissertation topic is going to be constrained by what you are able to afford.. because i can’t get at and read this other material that you no longer have access to
dang guys.. that’s how we’ve been teaching them for 12+ years.. no shocker.. we’ve been constraining access to (whatever a person wants to see/read/get) ever since we started compulsory schooling
19 min – rachel burley (@rsavenay): some of the world’s greatest challenges are not going to be solved by one individual group of researchers and we know that interdisciplinary research/collab is the way to get to those solutions faster.. and because so many of those challenges are so prevalent.. clean water; food security; global warming; public health.. there’s so many challenges that need to be solved there’s no reason why we wouldn’t want to do everything we can to drive that collab and to enable it to happen
not to mention.. if we were all free.. those challenges may be irrelevant
john: med knowledge and incredible expertise can be found in every far corner of the world.. we just haven’t tapped into it too often
let’s do that.. let’s listen to that.. every corner.. everyday.. as it could be..
20 min – john: so a friend of mine is a pediatric heart surgeon at stanford.. he observed when visiting in india and went to an institution.. that has now treated 10x as many patients as him and they’re able to get almost as good of results as he gets in stanford and they can do this between 5&10% the cost.. to me *that’s genius.. you would want to understand what’s going on in india as much as they would want to see what we’re able to do w all our marvels of tech
*imagining genius is not causing problems/diseases in the first place..
brian: it’s an easy conclusion to draw.. that scholarship must be open in order for scholarship to happen
it’s an easy conclusion to draw.. that curiosity must be open in order for cure ios city to happen
brian: and so it’s sort of a curiosity that it isn’t already open
ha… (typed above before he said that)
brian: but that’s really because of the history of how we got here
exactly.. all the problems stemming from our closing off ness of curiosity
(?): ever since the scholarly journal was founded/created in mid 17th cent.. authors have written for them w/o pay and they’ve written for impact not for money
n: we traveled to where research journals originated.. the royal society of london
21 min – stuart taylor (https://royalsociety.org/about-us/governance/staff/): publishing director of rs of london.. founded in 1660.. model of science journals: 1\ archival 2\ registration 3\ dissemination 4\ verification… so.. name on it..reviewed by peers..archived..spread to others
his explanation of model.. could fit hosting life bits.. but we’d be doing it instantaneously and ongoingly for 7bn plus people..
22 min – (same ? as end of 20 min – white shirt black buttons black hair): as soon as there were digital networks.. scholars began sharing scholarship on them.. ever since early 90s academics have been seriously promoting open access.. not just using the network to distribute scholarship and research .. but promoting it and trying to foster it for others
paul ginsparg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ginsparg): sounds like i’m making this up but i really felt at the time i was not alone in that if you have some wonderful idea or you make some break thru .. you like to think it’s because you had some inspiration or you worked harder than anyone else but you know i think it was because you had privileged access to info.. t..and so part of my intent in 1991 was just to level the playing field.. that is.. give everybody access to the same info at the same time and not have these disparities in access
23 min – john: 40% (of all the papers published in the new england journal of medicine) of the authors came from a 150 mile radius of boston.. which is where the new england journal of med is hq’d.. publishing is really an insider’s game..t.. those of us who are insiders have much greater access to publishing/reading
ahmed ogunlaja (@mendulla) (med dr nigeria): a lot of people are suffering as a result of the current system in academia.. a lot of dr’s would benefit from having the latest info about the best care to give to the patient
again.. not to mention all the illnesses that would never occur if we weren’t thinking.. to just get info into hands of drs (who have been thru academic system).. but rather.. listen to people 1st and trust and facil that
ahmed: there’s so much research has been done already.. it’s ridiculous sometimes when you try to access a paper that was written in 1975 and it’s still behind a paywall.. it doesn’t make any sense
ownership ness is ridiculous indeed.. but the fact that we keep researching whales in sea world.. even more detrimental/ridiculous.. data we’re paying for.. and/or not getting because we can’t pay.. isn’t even legit..
24 min – n: research journals have come a long way since 1665.. we now have ability to reach anyone around globe for next to nothing.. and that is a huge bene for scholars
(same ? as end of 20 min and at 22 min – white shirt black buttons black hair): many authors think that if they publish at a conventional/important journal they’re reaching everybody who cares about their work.. that’s false.. they’re reaching everybody who’s lucky enough to work at an institution that’s wealthy enough to subscribe to that journal and even if those journals are relative .. must have.. best sellers.. that all libraries try to subscribe to.. there are still libraries that cannot.. so authors get benefit of wider audience/impact.. can’t have impact if not read.. and most scholars strive for impact
25 min – brian: part of what academics do is study questions.. try to figure out some insight about what they’ve learned about a phenom and then share that with others.. so others can say.. what about this.. et al.. so really.. scholarship is a convo.. and the only way to have a convo is to know what each other is saying.. and what the basis is for what they’re saying.. so openness is fundamental to scholarship doing what it’s supposed to do
leslie chan (@lesliekwchan): it’s one of the original myths about open access.. there’s no peer review.. there’s lower quality.. and so forth.. and we know that.. when you put yourself out in the open.. people notice if you bs your way out there.. you’ll be caught very quickly
let’s ask why are they bs ing..? then let’s remove the incentives to bs ie:gershenfeld something else law
leslie: if you miss something important in terms of a piece of evidence.. someone will point you to it.. so you as a researcher will benefit from these observations/criticisms.. so research will be better.. not lower quality as a result of it
26 min – sara houhi (@rouhiroo): if you don’t work in the space.. you don’t have any concept of the dramatic impact that these tensions are going to have on everyone.. ie: see the epa take down its climate change section of its website.. there’s real concrete impact to not having info be available.. there’s plenty of free info out there and we all know how problematic it can be just because it’s free.. free doesn’t make it good.. just because it’s paid for doesn’t make it bad.. and i think that’s the tension that this community is always going to have to deal with
martin: in the very early days of open access movement/journals.. this notion that open access publishing was not of high quality was very predominant.. but that has changed now
27 min – karla: open access does not at all denigrate the level of peer review .. if anything it’s going to be even better
andy nobes (@andy_nobes): the reward system in many countries many developing countries still mirrors our own in the uk & us.. we did a survey recently asking about our researchers perceptions of open access.. a lot of them were saying.. great .. open access is what we need.. however when we asked the researchers what their priorities were for where they want to publish their journals.. top things were: impact; indexing.. and at the bottom of the list: open access.. so while saying positive things about open access.. unfortunately because of the reward structures it’s nearer the bottom.. because they still need to progress their career
28 min – helena asamoah hassan (director african library assoc) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Asamoah-Hassan): open access has been w us for some time.. the impact has not been as quick as i expected.. i’m kind of worried.. in the next 5 yrs.. how fast are we going to move..
kim barret (@jphysiol_eic): as you know .. on the lethargy of change.. academics are the most conservative people on the planet.. yes they may be innovating w their research .. but academic structures are very slow to change
david evans (exec director national science teachers assoc)(http://www.nsta.org/about/governance/leadership.aspx): the academic community is very very conservative.. it’s very hard to make significant system changes in the academic community.. our process for tenure now is the same as it was 150 yrs ago
29 min – vitek: authors are very aware that their chances of progress continuing in jobs.. getting fundings.. whole aspect of their careers.. depend on where they publish.. and this need created a sort of prison in which authors cannot have an alt way to publish except to publish in those journals that are most likely to help them in their careers
martin: one of the big obstacles for open access is actually the current research assessment and tenure and all these things.. because there still is a tendency to say.. ok if you publish for papers in the higher ranked journals.. you are producing better research.. it might be so that those papers are never sited/read.. but they take the journal impact factor as a proxy for quality.. and we know.. all of us.. that it is subject to gaming and fraud
30 min – catriona j maccallum (director of open science at hindawi – open access – https://www.hindawi.com/ ) (https://about.hindawi.com/team/catriona-maccallum/): the impact factor is actually the avg number of citations that that journal gets over a 2 yr window.. the impact factor is a perverse metric which has somehow become entrenched in the evaluation system and the way researchers are assessed across the world.. you can charge for a gouchi handbag a hell of a lot more than you can for one that you just pick off the high street
david prosser (@rluk_david): impact factors have perverted the whole system’s colleague communications.. massively.. even their founder.. eugene garfield said they should not be used in this way.. and you must begin to wonder that there’s something wrong.. and the faux scientific nature of them.. the fact that they’re accurate to 3 decimal places.. well .. they’re clearly not.. they’re given this pseudo scientific feel to them..
31 min – stuart: the royal society signed something a few yrs ago called the san fran declaration of research assessment (dora) which essentially calls on institutions/funders to assess scientists in ways that don’t use the impact factor.. so going much more back to peer review and actually looking at the work itself rather than simply relying on a metric which many people believe to be a very flawed metric
paul peters (@peters_paul) (ceo of hindawi – open access – https://www.hindawi.com/ ): the way of addressing the problem is to start divorcing the assessment of an academic from the journal in which they’re published in and if you’re able to evaluate an academic based on the research they produce on their own rather than where the research has been published.. i think you can then start to allow researchers to publish in journals that provide better service.. better access.. lower costs.. all these things..
this is so fractal ish to school.. why can’t we see it there.. then we wouldn’t even be talking about any of this
catriona: journals that are highly selective reject work that is perfectly publishable/good.. but they reject it because it’s not a significant advance.. not going to make the headlines.. so gets rejected then goes to next journal and thru whole process again.. so the rational for launching plus one was trying to stop those rounds and rounds of wasted.. on all sides.. scientists/reviewers/editors.. and ultimately at the expense of science and society
32 min – louise page (https://www.plos.org/people): the time it takes to go thru the top tier journals and then maybe not make it and have to go to another journal.. locks up that particular bit of research in a time warp
paul: it is in the interest of research funders who are paying mn/bn’s to fund research every year for that research to then be openly available
33 min – michael w carroll (founding board member of cc) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_W._Carroll): there’ve been a lot of diff ways to come at this and a lot of people have said.. let’s be incremental.. first we’ll create – green open access.. where you just provide access to the content but no usage rights that are associated w that.. the gates foundation said that’s only half a loaf.. we’re not in the half a loaf business.. if you’re gonna do this go all the way.. and i really applaud them for not wanting to take the middle step.. they have enough foresight and frankly.. leverage.. to demand getting it right the first time around
richard wilder (@dick_wilder) (gates foundation): from the foundations perspective we’re able thru funding to work with our grantees and say.. yes.. we’re going to give you this money and yes we want you to do certain sci/tech research and yield a particular outcome.. but we want you to do it in a particular way and one of the ways we want people to work is the results the do is broadly open and accessible.. and along with that not only do we want to ensure.. the money we spend directly yield tangible benefit to those people.. we’d also like to see it have a multiplier effect so that the info.. the results.. of we we fund in.. gets out for broader use by the scientific/academic community to build on to accelerate/expand *the work that we’re achieving..
so.. just the work that you’re achieving.. that you’re deciding is the work.. ie: school reform.. imagine fi you would let go and try an experiment where you let all the people be free to do whatever their hearts tell them to do.. ie: short bp
with all your money/power/attention.. you totally could have gotten us back/to an undisturbed ecosystem by now..
34 min – opinions on elsevier
43 min – lisa browar (linda hall library) – (after section on library contracts like cable contracts.. pkg deal and they can pull any publication at any time.. but you can’t cancel) we could do that by remaining a print based library.. don’t need a login.. or a an institutional affiliation..
n: all of a sudden print based seems pretty forward leaning.. maybe half our problem was getting roped into digital negotiations in the first place
44 – libraries can’t tell other libraries what they’re paying for pkg deal.. negotiate price point w every single institution
51 min – john: we can make cars that can drive themselves.. you’re telling me we can’t process the lit better.. there are more co’s competing to make self driving cars than there are to process the biomed lit and help us decide what drug to take.. and that is a direct consequence of the lock up of the lit.. that’s a fundamental fucking problem
we could go deeper.. this whole paywall as fractal to school.. causing the diseases in the first place..
52 min – ryan merkley (@ryanmerkley) (ceo cc): researchers want their work to be read.. they want to advance discovery/innovation.. and while i spend a lot of time fighting over.. why work should be open vs closed.. the end.. the real case is.. do we want innovation or do we not want innovation.. and i think there is an obvious cause for openness to unlock innovation
deeper than cc as well
to younger gen.. the older model just doesn’t make sense anymore
aaron swartz – internet’s own boy
the public should be ashamed for allowing a model like that to exist.. we have today a set of tools to share knowledge.. including academic research in a way that we couldn’t 20 yrs ago
55 min – bit on sci hub – as the best alt..
on some saying it’s good.. and some on (ie: kim) saying it’s illegal.. and why would anyone think it’s ok to steal other’s property
58 min – john: we’re at this middle ground and everybody wants it done now.. we have no idea what the next 15 yrs will hold.. sci hub is the napster of lit.. there would be no sci hub if we had been successful or if the publishing industry had been successful.. arguably what we did was create the conditions on both sides (research and publishing) that led to this moment (on using sci hub himself to get his father’s data out to make a book for his son – i’m not the only one that is doing it this way.. that’s a market failure)
indeed.. it’s called the supposed to ness and property ness of school/work et al
1:00 – ryan: priorities change.. i believe elsevier is a group of smart people who want discovery to happen but don’t have a better idea on how to make money in the middle.. and unfortunately for them.. the internet is the story of breaking down gatekeepers.. and they’re the gatekeeper standing between.. in some cases.. research and discovery
1:01 – tom: sometimes innovation is the right person in the right place at the right time.. and all a paywall does is ensure that it’s a lot less likely that the right person is going to be in the right place at the right time to get something done..t
intro’d via Joi share
Joi Ito (@Joi) tweeted at 5:32 AM – 8 Sep 2018 :
Went to screening of #PaywallTheMovie directed by @jason_schmitt last night organized by @mitpress and @amy_brand. Everyone needs to watch this documentary and we need to open academic publishing and this starts with changing tenure review and “impact factor” focus for journals. (http://twitter.com/Joi/status/1038389733020315648?s=17)
Joi Ito (@Joi) tweeted at 5:33 AM – 8 Sep 2018 :
Also, in case you missed it, the Europeans agree: https://t.co/RVOZonv32c (http://twitter.com/Joi/status/1038389886129262592?s=17)
Joi Ito (@Joi) tweeted at 5:52 AM – 8 Sep 2018 :
Here’s the link to the movie. And no, it’s not paywalled. :-) https://t.co/YiS8VsfIQv (http://twitter.com/Joi/status/1038394545518641153?s=17)
(@schmidtphi) tweeted at 5:50 AM – 8 Sep 2018 :
@Joi @jason_schmitt @mitpress @amy_brand Yes and an open access SWAT team that helps top journals migrate – basically making the process as seamless as possible – taking care of tech, bridge financing, data migration … the editors just have to decide they want to switch and call a secret number. (http://twitter.com/schmidtphi/status/1038394075102302208?s=17)
found while googling john
the opposite of open isn’t closed.. the opposite of open is broken – @wilbanks
aaron swartz – internet’s own boy
GeorgeMonbiot (@GeorgeMonbiot) tweeted at 12:04 AM – 13 Sep 2018 :
This week’s column is about the young Kazakhstani scientist who has broken down the gates of knowledge. She is a true hero of our age: https://t.co/JKymJvOFzz (http://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1040119076574646273?s=17)
t Alexandra Elbakyan has done to the multibillion-dollar industry that traps knowledge behind paywalls. Sci-Hub, her pirate web scraper service, has done more than any government to tackle one of the biggest rip-offs of the modern era: the capture of publicly funded research that should belong to us all.
His (Robert Maxwell) business model relied on the enclosure of common and public resources. Or, to use the technical term, daylight robbery..As his other ventures ran into trouble, he sold his company to the Dutch publishing giant Elsevier
Sci-Hub allows free access to 70m papers, otherwise locked behind paywalls.
While the US courts have characterised her activities as copyright violation and data theft, to me her work involves the restoration to the public realm of property that belongs to us and for which we have paid
Those who pay most are publicly funded libraries. Taxpayers must shell out twice: first for the research, then to see the work they have sponsored. There might be legal justifications for this practice. There are no ethical justifications.
The brilliant online innovator Aaron Swartz sought to release 5m scientific articles into the public domain. Facing the possibility of decades in a US federal prison for this selfless act, he took his life.
In the meantime, as a matter of principle, do not pay a penny to read an academic article. The ethical choice is to read the stolen material published by Sci-Hub.