All EU scientific articles to be free by 2020

[Skroe]

Don't you have state libraries over there? We have plenty in here, Turkey. Mind you, Turkey's non-university/non-college libraries are shit. These libraries are totally free and have access to most journals.

There is the Library of Congress, which is the largest library in the world, but I think what you would call "state libraries" here are rather municipal (city, town) libraries, funded by State (big S, like Texas or New York) and local tax dollars.

The most important scientific work, which would be thesises or papers, would be stored in university archives / libraries. My fahter is a scientist and for his 60th birthday I called Harvard (where he got his Ph.D.) and got a leather bound copy of his thesis they had on storage (microfilm or something? Maybe digital now?).

Basically there is no one central repository, although Library of Congress and national inter-university programs attempt to create things approximating that.

I mean frankly Google is the best for this. I needed 13 articles for the paper I was working on. 6 I found for free online, 7 were only able to be found in journals and had to be paid for. Those other 6 appeared in journals at some point, but had been released for free somewhere.

And when you pay for them, it's not even like the PDFs are encrypted or anything. You could throw them all online if you wanted to (which is what Aaron Schwartz did).

[Kuntantee]

There is the Library of Congress, which is the largest library in the world, but I think what you would call "state libraries" here are rather municipal (city, town) libraries, funded by State (big S, like Texas or New York) and local tax dollars.

The most important scientific work, which would be thesises or papers, would be stored in university archives / libraries. My fahter is a scientist and for his 60th birthday I called Harvard (where he got his Ph.D.) and got a leather bound copy of his thesis they had on storage (microfilm or something? Maybe digital now?).

Basically there is no one central repository, although Library of Congress and national inter-university programs attempt to create things approximating that.

I mean frankly Google is the best for this. I needed 13 articles for the paper I was working on. 6 I found for free online, 7 were only able to be found in journals and had to be paid for. Those other 6 appeared in journals at some point, but had been released for free somewhere.

And when you pay for them, it's not even like the PDFs are encrypted or anything. You could throw them all online if you wanted to (which is what Aaron Schwartz did).

We, and rest of the scientists, browse papers online, read online (or print from PDF), even get the citation from the websites. The e-libraries, such as IEEE, check your network, if it's registered on their system, they let you browse their e-library. This is how the research is done. You don't need the hard copy, just access via a special network. In the libraries I mentioned, such access is provided.

[Garnier Fructis]

The truth of the matter is, if you work or attend a university, they have free-usage and lisencing deals with most journals. If you work for a company, then you just put it on the company credit card (so who cares that you have to pay).

The problem arises for independent researchers, of which there are many.

But a grad student at a university should be paying close to nothing, or the university that he is attached to should be paying that.

I'm genuinely interested in what constitutes an independent researcher. The only papers I've seen from independent researchers are crank articles about relativity or math, but my experience is rather limited.

[Celista]

This is amazing.

Definitely need to do the same in other parts of the world, like the US.

[Garnier Fructis]

I mean frankly Google is the best for this. I needed 13 articles for the paper I was working on. 6 I found for free online, 7 were only able to be found in journals and had to be paid for. Those other 6 appeared in journals at some point, but had been released for free somewhere.

And when you pay for them, it's not even like the PDFs are encrypted or anything. You could throw them all online if you wanted to (which is what Aaron Schwartz did).

What I've found is that you can often find the paper for free on the authors' websites.

[Celista]

Don't give me shit about scientists not getting into it for the money. Many are in it for the fame, and it's not like that's less of a motivator than money. And yes, publishing often can often be a deciding factor in getting tenure, you know, their job.

Whaaaaaaaat.

I mean, sure egos/fame-seeking can be a factor for some I'm sure, but most scientists are unknowns. Most go into it for the love of research.

[Kuntantee]

I'm genuinely interested in what constitutes an independent researcher. The only papers I've seen from independent researchers are crank articles about relativity or math, but my experience is rather limited.

An independant researcher is, I guess, someone who neither works for an university nor for a company, effectively having problems with accessing to the journals, because they need to pay for papers.

[Celista]

I'm genuinely interested in what constitutes an independent researcher. The only papers I've seen from independent researchers are crank articles about relativity or math, but my experience is rather limited.

You don't think the general public would benefit from access to scientific articles? As pointed out, the only people who regularly have access to articles are those whose employers pay for access (typically limited to certain career fields) and students.

[Skroe]

I'm genuinely interested in what constitutes an independent researcher. The only papers I've seen from independent researchers are crank articles about relativity or math, but my experience is rather limited.

Well an example would be someone who is working for Company A but is doing a start up with another group on the side, one that has limited resources (you know, just getting started) and it's writing a paper to back up whatever it is doing if the start us is based on some new tech. They'd have to pay out of pocket.

[Ripster42]

Whaaaaaaaat.

I mean, sure egos/fame-seeking can be a factor for some I'm sure, but most scientists are unknowns. Most go into it for the love of research.

Ya, and I'm pretty sure I talk about that. They want a job doing what they like (money). If unethical people can't hack it, they're likely to pay to have their papers published, and having papers available for free removes incentive to uphold the quality of journals and requires journals to completely change their business model.

I'm all for the idea of freely available academic research, but it presents severe quality control issues. Right now we have a market force that drives journals towards academic integrity. The EU is removing that force and they're replacing it with... what? That was the thrust of my first post in this thread, and I got sidetracked by someone implying that scientists would never stoop to unethical behavior in securing their job/recognition, which, if you know anything about humanity (or the current pay-to-publish issues), is idiotic.

My first post:

So is this going to put more review control of published articles in political hands?

Edit: I'm not saying this isn't a good thing as far as spreading knowledge goes if it's handled correctly. But what's going to happen to the current journals? Where are they going to get their money from? Are they going to become pay to publish and really lose editorial control or get a subsidy from the government since they basically said they have to give away their product for free.

The "scientists don't care about money:"

Journals generally don't pay scientists for their publications. It's not like publishing a book. Publications get you more visibility and better -research- funding from agencies through grant awards, though. Their salaries don't change as a result of publishing 5 or 0 papers in a year.

Also, no one becomes a scientist for the money. For people who are that capable, if they care about money, science is one of the worst paying fields to go into.

Which, if you know about school politics, is garbage. There's huge pressure at a lot of schools to publish. If you don't, you're not getting tenure and you're not getting any recognition.

[Skroe]

You don't think the general public would benefit from access to scientific articles? As pointed out, the only people who regularly have access to articles are those whose employers pay for access (typically limited to certain career fields) and students.

I agree with the principle. However I don't think the general public benefits at all. Honestly, they're not equipped to get it. They're entitled to it from the perspective that their tax dollars pay for it. But let's not pretend that that the general public is at all equipped to understand it.

It always kind of weirds me out seeing even my non-science friends on facebook link science stuff on their facebook. I mean I'm glad we live in a society where science increasingly plays the central role in all things. And I'm glad some people are excited about it. But this country needs more people going into science, not people going into marketing and fanboying/fangirling science.

[Ripster42]

You don't think the general public would benefit from access to scientific articles? As pointed out, the only people who regularly have access to articles are those whose employers pay for access (typically limited to certain career fields) and students.

I'm not sure the benefit the public would gain would be worth the detriment that free journals pose.

[Skroe]

An independant researcher is, I guess, someone who neither works for an university nor for a company, effectively having problems with accessing to the journals, because they need to pay for papers.

It's also somebody who works for a company with scant resources.

From my perspective, a big reason to make articles free for use, beyond the whole tax-payers paid for them thing, is that it lowers the barriers that start ups have against established companies.

It's REALLY fucking annoying reading an artcile, finding that there is a must-read reference, then finding it behind a $40.00 fee. I mean $40.00 isn't a lot of money, but it still feels like I have access to half the data.

[Celista]

I agree with the principle. However I don't think the general public benefits at all. Honestly, they're not equipped to get it. They're entitled to it from the perspective that their tax dollars pay for it. But let's not pretend that that the general public is at all equipped to understand it.

It always kind of weirds me out seeing even my non-science friends on facebook link science stuff on their facebook. I mean I'm glad we live in a society where science increasingly plays the central role in all things. And I'm glad some people are excited about it. But this country needs more people going into science, not people going into marketing and fanboying/fangirling science.

I think a lot of that is due to lack of access, though. We get info second-hand from journalists who create clickbait articles with sensationalist headlines. I'm sure a lot of the general public won't be able to understand the content of certain articles, but that doesn't mean *all* won't.

Also this opens up access to students/researchers in poor countries who would otherwise be unable to afford access to content.

[Garnier Fructis]

Well an example would be someone who is working for Company A but is doing a start up with another group on the side, one that has limited resources (you know, just getting started) and it's writing a paper to back up whatever it is doing if the start us is based on some new tech. They'd have to pay out of pocket.

That makes sense.

You don't think the general public would benefit from access to scientific articles? As pointed out, the only people who regularly have access to articles are those whose employers pay for access (typically limited to certain career fields) and students.

Researchers like Skroe and Kuntatee are describing would benefit from it. The general public, no. Most all papers in a given field are impenetrable to anyone without a formal education, and even then much of it requires further specialized knowledge.

- - - Updated - - -

I think a lot of that is due to lack of access, though. We get info second-hand from journalists who create clickbait articles with sensationalist headlines. I'm sure a lot of the general public won't be able to understand the content of certain articles, but that doesn't mean *all* won't.

Also this opens up access to students/researchers in poor countries who would otherwise be unable to afford access to content.

They're not equipped for it not because of lack of access to it. You really do need most of the material presented in a 4 year degree as base knowledge to begin to understand most papers. That is stuff people have ready access to already.

[Mazeari]

Yay.

Trying to look up sources of sources while writing a paper and finding out your university didn't pay the access to that specific journal pisses me the hell off.

Reading the abstract an being like: OMG that's just what I neeed.
And then you click to full and gg

[Garnier Fructis]

Reading the abstract an being like: OMG that's just what I neeed.
And then you click to full and gg

It's worth asking professors working in that area if they have a copy of that paper. I've gotten a few papers my university didn't pay for because some professors had it lying around.

[Celista]

They're not equipped for it not because of lack of access to it. You really do need most of the material presented in a 4 year degree as base knowledge to begin to understand most papers. That is stuff people have ready access to already.

Well for one, you don't need a four-year degree to have technical knowledge in a certain field. Hell, in the US a bachelor's degree is 1-2 years' worth of course content that is specific to a field; most BA/BS degrees have two years of general education requirements.

Also, people aren't students FOREVER. Journal subscriptions are often expensive if you want to maintain your knowledge regarding a field after graduation.

[Skroe]

I think a lot of that is due to lack of access, though. We get info second-hand from journalists who create clickbait articles with sensationalist headlines. I'm sure a lot of the general public won't be able to understand the content of certain articles, but that doesn't mean *all* won't.

Maybe. I think it really depends on the article. For example, of the 7 articles I bought, 6 were VERY technical and nobody outside of the field would have been able to make heads or tails of them. But one of them (ironically the most expensive one) was an overview of the last 10 years. It didn't present any new research for the first time anything. It was a industry aimed, technical version of of what you would find in Scientific American (maybe old-SCientific American, I havent read it in years) or something.

I think something like that would be suitable for a wider audience (which to me, I had the same response you're probably having... that it SHOULD be the free one of all of them). But the other 6... you need to have some math and statistics background to get around them, at least in my opinion. Hell the statistics I have to get our statistician to make sense of it sometimes.

Also this opens up access to students/researchers in poor countries who would otherwise be unable to afford access to content.

Ehhhh you see for me, this is something I'm not too keen on. A Science and Technology "Prime Directive" is something I'm very keen on.

One of the most dispicable thing American technology business has done in the last fifty years was be willing and able participants... no... planners and architects, of the Great Firewall of China. SUre, lots of technology has benefits billions of people. The abused technology is truly historic in its abuse though.

And we've seen what happens when we do set limits. As part of the National Supercomputing Initiative, the Obama Administration and Congress basically banned the export of further Intel and Nvidia chips to China, in order to prevent them from upgrading the Tiahne-2 computer. This has been like, nuking the Chinese Supercomputing program, because while the US is now building two (potentially three) pathway-to--exascale supercomputers, China has to figure out how to design it's own chips to retrofit it's current world leading supercomputer, which it is doing at a very, very slow rate. China knows how to manufacture. They do not know how to create and innovate. And it is not getting better.

We need to be very skeptical of how our science and technology is used outside of the US, Canada, EU, Turkey, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and a few others. I'd even throw Russia on that list, even though they are our enemy. And moreover we need to make sure our companies are putting that science to ethical use and use that is within the National Interest.

[Serpha]

I may be wrong but don't most researchers get grant of tax payers money? It would make sense to make the outcome of those free.