Universities Spend Millions on Accessing Results of Publicly Funded Research (theconversation.com)

Mark C. Wilson, a senior lecturer at Department of Computer Science, University of Auckland, writing for The Conversation: University research is generally funded from the public purse. The results, however, are published in peer-reviewed academic journals, many of which charge subscription fees. I had to use freedom of information laws to determine how much universities in New Zealand spend on journal subscriptions to give researchers and students access to the latest research -- and I found they paid almost US$15 million last year to just four publishers. There are additional costs, too. Paywalls on research hold up scientific progress and limit the publicâ(TM)s access to the latest information.

Comments

How much of that was New Zealand tax money?

[CajunArson]

I don't see why there's an entitlement for universities in New Zealand to be given free access to work that was paid for with the tax money of people in other countries (and I'm sure the U.S. is #1 by a huge margin).

The story would have made a better point if the author actually figured out how much New Zealand universities pay to get access to papers paid for by New Zealand taxpayers.

Re:How much of that was New Zealand tax money?

[slashrio]

Because then American universities can be entitled to look for free in the results of Brazilian, Chinese, Russian, French, English, German... well, you got the point?

Publishers don't pay for much

[tolleyl]

One more reason why this is so irritating, is that the publishers hardly have to pay anyone. The scientists writing the papers do so for free, and often have to do the final print formatting themselves. The paper is then sent to the peer reviewers, who perform the reviews for free. In the end, the publisher doesn't pay for content, layout or review, so the journals don't have good reasons to be expensive. Things will gradually change, but it's taking a long time simply because scientists want their name in a big name journal.

Re:Publishers don't pay for much

[Obfuscant]

The scientists writing the papers do so for free,

No, they don't. They aren't paid by the publisher, but that doesn't mean "free".

and often have to do the final print formatting themselves.

Not for the reputable journals.

The paper is then sent to the peer reviewers, who perform the reviews for free.

But the review system is managed by the publisher, not the author. There is a cost to that management.

In the end, the publisher doesn't pay for content, layout or review,

Umm, layout and review are publisher costs.

so the journals don't have good reasons to be expensive.

Printing on archival quality paper is a costly process.

This isn't saying the current system is right, it just isn't as cost free to the publisher as you claim.

True but irrelevant

[lfp98]

The simple fact is that the essential quality control involved in scientific publication - vetting the scientific content and standardizing the presentation - is expensive to perform, and somebody has to pay for it. Traditionally, that work has been done by publishers who charge subscription fees for the service, and are periodically accused of price-gouging. Open-access journals which have attempted to bypass the commercial publishers have invariably discovered much to their dismay just how expensive it is. When they started, they predicted that vetting, copy-editing and maintaining an article online could easily be done for under $1000. But they now charge authors several thousand dollars to publish an article, money generally taken out of grant funds which otherwise would be used to support the actual research being reported. And still these open-access journals claim to be losing money. Is this a better system? I'm not so sure.

Re:True but irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Publishers don't pay for peer review of the articles. It's all volunteer work.