Europe announces that all scientific papers should be free by 2020

[Deleted]

The EU does some great things in relation to science, well done to the EU on this front!

http://www.sciencealert.com/europe-a...ssible-by-2020

"This week was a revolutionary week in the sciences - not because we discovered a new fundamental particle or had a new breakthrough in quantum computing - but because some of the most prominent world leaders announced an initiative which asserts that European scientific papers should be made freely available to all by 2020.

This would legally only impact research supported by public and public-private funds, which are a vast portion of the papers produced annually; however, the goal is to make all science freely available.

Ultimately, the commitment rests on three main tenets: "Sharing knowledge freely", "open access", and "reusing research data".

And it would totally transform the (long questioned) paid-for subscription model that is used by many scientific journals. It would also undermine the common practice of releasing reports under embargo (a method that allows scientific journals to favour certain science communicators and members of the media to the great detriment of others).

Ultimately, this decision comes as a result of a meeting by the Competitiveness Council,which includes the ministers of Science, Innovation, Trade, and Industry. European Union member states were in agreement regarding the value of, and their commitment to, this new open access (OA) target.

If the 2020 target is met, it would mean that millions of people (literally) would have free access to the knowledge and information produced by experts in physics, astronomy, mathematics, engineering, biology… it would make the sciences accessible to individuals in ways that previous generations could only dream about."

[Grimbold21]

Aren't there sites out there akin to piratebay but where you can get articles?

[Powerogue]

Aren't there sites out there akin to piratebay but where you can get articles?

There shouldn't have to be. I don't see the sense in working this hard to get articles published then not letting people read them.

[Deletedaccount1]

Interesting I guess but useless for the vast majority of people.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Interesting I guess but useless for the vast majority of people.

And insanely useful for the rest.

[Deletedaccount1]

And insanely useful for the rest.

For who? Other researchers?

Undergrads don't usually read research papers. When I was a grad student, my university had a Phil papers account so we got access to many for free that way. I never even used it much though.

I'd imagine most researchers have some sort of database to look through to find papers. I don't see the benefits of this when most researchers can have their institutions pay to get them papers they need.

[Sunseeker]

Scientists don't really get paid for the articles themselves anyway, they get paid for doing the research, so really the articles should be free.

[Deleted]

The EU does some great things in relation to science, well done to the EU on this front!

It's actually a stupid thing.
The journals need to sell their papers -

- - - Updated - - -

Scientists don't really get paid for the articles themselves anyway, they get paid for doing the research, so really the articles should be free.

yes but the people printing and vetting the research prior to publication needs to be paid.

[Fincayra]

It's actually a stupid thing.
The journals need to sell their papers -

- - - Updated - - -



yes but the people printing and vetting the research prior to publication needs to be paid.

And they can continue to do so. Only the publicly funded research papers will be made freely available.

[Mafic]

That will be the happiest day of my life. yay!

[Sunseeker]

yes but the people printing and vetting the research prior to publication needs to be paid.

Scientific journal magazines are mostly subscription based and most of them have switched to online distribution methods anyway. That said, the research doesn't need to be published in a journal. Further: the vetting is usually something that scientists do to "get their name out" while they perform other research. They don't get paid because they don't have to do it, some may charge for it (some do), but their services are not required. You can always use someone else. In addition, those costs are often covered by the organization paying for the research.

The money made off subscription services DOES NOT go to scientists, researcher or scientific endeavors. It goes to publication agencies.

[Deleted]

The money made off subscription services DOES NOT go to scientists, researcher or scientific endeavors. It goes to publication agencies.

It goes to continue the good that they are - Hell the online repositories need money too you know that ?

[Ryme]

Undoubtedly! What a good move, EU, there's nothing more frustrating that spending hours searching for the study or paper you're interested in only to get the abstract and then a gigantic pay wall.

[unbound]

Interesting I guess but useless for the vast majority of people.

Only in a direct sense. We will all benefit from this in the end.

[Slant]

The EU does some great things in relation to science, well done to the EU on this front!

http://www.sciencealert.com/europe-a...ssible-by-2020

"This week was a revolutionary week in the sciences - not because we discovered a new fundamental particle or had a new breakthrough in quantum computing - but because some of the most prominent world leaders announced an initiative which asserts that European scientific papers should be made freely available to all by 2020.

This would legally only impact research supported by public and public-private funds, which are a vast portion of the papers produced annually; however, the goal is to make all science freely available.

Ultimately, the commitment rests on three main tenets: "Sharing knowledge freely", "open access", and "reusing research data".

And it would totally transform the (long questioned) paid-for subscription model that is used by many scientific journals. It would also undermine the common practice of releasing reports under embargo (a method that allows scientific journals to favour certain science communicators and members of the media to the great detriment of others).

Ultimately, this decision comes as a result of a meeting by the Competitiveness Council,which includes the ministers of Science, Innovation, Trade, and Industry. European Union member states were in agreement regarding the value of, and their commitment to, this new open access (OA) target.

If the 2020 target is met, it would mean that millions of people (literally) would have free access to the knowledge and information produced by experts in physics, astronomy, mathematics, engineering, biology… it would make the sciences accessible to individuals in ways that previous generations could only dream about."

This isn't as good a change as it sounds, at first. Free science also means nobody will publish it. That means it'll actually be harder for scientists to find the obscure texts they need for their research. The reason why these journals are so expensive is because they require a lot of effort (peer-review) and production cost for a relatively small number of copies produced (compare million copies newspaper to a quarterly journal that has 2000 copies in circulation plus perhaps 1000 copies on demand). And these Journals bring a lot of context to the papers they publish, so it's not just a set of statistics but something people can actually digest rather easily, if they're familiar with the topic.

[Slant]

Undoubtedly! What a good move, EU, there's nothing more frustrating that spending hours searching for the study or paper you're interested in only to get the abstract and then a gigantic pay wall.

I know what you mean, but from personal experience I know that the people interested in these papers aren't usually common folks, they're companies and other researchers with well endowed budgets that are easily able to pay those fees. It's all a big circle going round and round. The only ones excluded from this circle are the common plebs and students. Students can probably get past those walls via their university library (who usually have access to the content behind the wall, if they know what they're doing) and the common plebs is not interesting to the scientific community as a contributor in 9 out of 10 cases (the 10th being a freak genius inventing shit).

- - - Updated - - -

Fair enough. Maybe governments could fund journals to offset the costs.

I haven't read the article, but the OP doesn't mention anyone having any concern about those publishers. There's a rather prominent struggle within the publishing community to consolidate. I can see smaller publishers either going super niche or being swallowed up by the big scientific publishers (Wiley, Informa, Springer, Elsevier just to name a few). This also means that opposition to "free stuff" gets more organised as a result. This dream of free science for publically funded stuff is a good idea, but it'll ultimately either won't change anything or will worsen the situation dramatically.

Either it won't change anything, because the stuff that is released for free will be hard to digest tables of scientific data, which none of us will be able to fathom. Or it'll worsen the situation if publishers aren't allowed to charge for their service of prepping the data into something readable that is also taking part in the peer review process that largely happens in those journals.

[Slant]

Scientific papers aren't designed for the average person to understand. They're meant for people with knowledge of the subject, usually other scientists... Hence them being peer-reviewed instead of simply reviewed.

that doesnt mean you dont pay the staff. There is a lot of manpower and effort going intobthose papers for very very low production of printed copies. Its also that the rarity raises the price. I have seen volumes of papers that cost a hundred new cost a thousand on the used market when they are out of production.

[Deleted]

I know Europeans always want free stuff.. but whats the incentive to publish them in the first place then?

[Slant]

Which is why everything is going digital. Yes, you have to pay for servers. Costs are still typically lower. And then you have no shipping costs. This also helps keep papers in circulation instead of costing thousands on the secondary market.

Digital makes perhaps ten to twenty percent of the market at the moment tops. Still a long way to go. And publishers are hindering progress where they can atm concerning digital publishing.

[Deleted]

Interesting I guess but useless for the vast majority of people.

And this is actually very shortsighted remark.

If scientific papers become more available they may contribute to new inventions and discoveries which in the end may produce something useful to ordinary people.