Slashdot Mirror
All European Scientific Articles To Be Freely Accessible By 2020 (eu2016.nl)
An anonymous reader shares a report on EU2016: All scientific articles in Europe must be freely accessible as of 2020. EU member states want to achieve optimal reuse of research data. They are also looking into a European visa for foreign start-up founders. And, according to the new Innovation Principle, new European legislation must take account of its impact on innovation. These are the main outcomes of the meeting of the Competitiveness Council in Brussels on 27 May. Under the presidency of Netherlands State Secretary for Education, Culture and Science Sander Dekker, the EU ministers responsible for research and innovation decided unanimously to take these significant steps.Many questions remain unanswered. For instance, it is not clear whether the publishers would be forced to make their papers available for free or whether EU will only allow scientists who are happy to abide by the rules to publish papers. We should have more details on this soon.
It says on the article that the rules are supposed to cover parers written on taxpayer money. I'm sorry if this takes the edge off your righteous anger and rage.
Then it's a shitty ass summary. My apologies for the bad comment. That's a big difference from the summary. If your work is funded by the government, which means taxpayers, your papers should be freely accessible. Also, any inventions that are novel enough to be patentable should be freely available for anyone to use without paying royalties. The US has a monstrosity called the Bayh-Dole Act, which allows universities to patent federally funded research and charge royalties from taxpayers. That's bullshit.
So let me get this straight. You are a scientific researcher but you don't want to make your results publicly available?
How exactly is that science that you are doing?
Proper science (with the maximum chance of advancing correctly and rapidly, and the maximum benefit to humanity) is an inherently open information-sharing activity.
Are you working on bio-weapons science or something else really dangerous like that? If not, I don't see your motivation for hiding your results.
If you're doing science just for the money, you're doing it wrong.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You are a scientific researcher but you don't want to make your results publicly available?
I'm guessing they're not, just an AC troll. Researchers don't get paid whenever something they write is downloaded; the journal leeches are paid whenever someone without a subscription buys access, or paid through subscriptions. If anything, not having your work more available is hurting you, since less people can read, access, and cite your paper. I really can't think of what advantage there would be, intrinsically anyway, to publishing in a paid over an open journal.
Currently government research funding is rigged against open access. The success of the research project will be measured by the impact of the publications generated by it, which means getting published in high impact journals. High impact factor journals are subscription access, or charge a significant fee to make papers open access. If you republish essentially the same work elsewhere as open access, this will be considered a violation of the publisher's copyright, and moreover as auto-plagiarism. As a university (or country for that matter) you can choose between supporting extortionate subscription fees by doing things the traditional way, paying extortionate fees charged by publishers for open access, or refusing to publish in the big scientific journals and as a consequence taking a tumble in the international rankings.