View Single Post
Ian Parker
#2
Nov28-08, 05:00 AM
P: n/a
On 26 Nov, 17:43, juanREM...@canonicalscience.com wrote:
> This new report is ready to be downloaded (in pdf format) from the
> canonicalscience site.
>


[[Mod. note -- Excess quoted text excised by moderator. -- jt]]

>  The problems analyzed are the current tendency to limit the size of
>  scholarly communications, the funding of research, the rates and page
>  charges of journals, the wars for the intellectual property of the data
>  and results of research, and the replacement of impartial reviewing by
>  anonymous censorship. The scope includes an economic analysis of PLoS'
>  finances, the wars APS versus Wikipedia and ACS versus NIH, and a list
>   of thirty four Nobel Laureates whose awarded work was rejected by peer
>  review.


[[Mod. note -- Excess quoted text excised by moderator. -- jt]]

My main bugbear is the cost of access of scientific publications. I am
now retired but I like to keep abreast of scientific developments.
Paying the exorbitant sums demanded is out of the question for me.
There does indeed seem to be little justification.

I suppose you get what you can. I can't help feeling that the money is
being circulated. Universities get suported by the government,
industry etc. A proportion of the money allocated goes on supporting
publications. If this was supplied directly and the publication (in
electronic form) were free, you would not in fact be spending any more
money than you are now. In fact you might well be spending less.