Science Journals Are Laughing All the Way To the Bank, Locking the Results of Publicly Funded Research Behind Exorbitant Paywalls. This Must Be Stopped. (newscientist.com)

Here is a trivia question for you: what is the most profitable business in the world? You might think oil, or maybe banking. You would be wrong. The answer is academic publishing. Its profit margins are vast, reportedly in the region of 40 per cent. New Scientist: The reason it is so lucrative is because most of the costs of its content is picked up by taxpayers. Publicly funded researchers do the work, write it up and judge its merits. And yet the resulting intellectual property ends up in the hands of the publishers. To rub salt into the wound they then sell it via exorbitant subscriptions and paywalls, often paid for by taxpayers too.

The academic publishing business model is indefensible. Practically everybody -- even the companies that profit from it -- acknowledges that it has to change. And yet the status quo has proven extremely resilient. The latest attempt to break the mould is called Plan S, created by umbrella group cOAlition S. It demands that all publicly funded research be made freely available. When Plan S was unveiled in September, its backers expected support to snowball. But only a minority of Europe's 43 research funding bodies have signed up, and hoped-for participation from the US has failed to materialise. Meanwhile, a grass-roots campaign against it is gathering momentum. Plan S deserves a chance.

Comments

The real reason it's locked away

[SuperKendall]

If all of the public research was public, then we'd all be able to see how much of it is a sham.

This is of course a great reason to mandate that all publicly funded research be made completely free to access. For-Pay journals could well survive just by curating the most interesting an accurate of them, and it's likely the quality of journals would go up as a result.

Building back up the credibility of science in general is a huge need at present, because the lack of it is allowing things like anti-vac sentiment and other crazy ideas to spread like wildfire.

Re:The real reason it's locked away

[serviscope_minor]

If all of the public research was public, then we'd all be able to see how much of it is a sham.

Huh?

We already know. It's been reported on repeatedly. And for anyone interested in looking, many papers are available freely online even with paywalled journals and, frankly, most people aren't going to check because until you know the jargon of the field even a sound paper is indistinguishable from gibberish half the time.

This is of course a great reason to mandate that all publicly funded research be made completely free to access.

No. The reason to mandate it is so people have access to the research. Not so that people can see what a sham science is (clutches pearls). Science is the only way of knowing we actually have. That doesn't make it magically immune from Sturgeon's law. Anyone who is surpised by that is naive.

And yet science advances.

For-Pay journals could well survive just by curating the most interesting

That's what the top journals already do. Not all journals are equal.

an accurate of them,

Well, interesting is not the same as accurate *cough*nature*cough*.

and it's likely the quality of journals would go up as a result.

Doubtful. The top journals will continue to have the flashiest results. Given that most journals let authors pup papers up on their own website and allow preprints on arvix/bioarxiv (apparently biologists are too snooty to use something dirtied by pyhsicists), there won't be much difference.

Not really. Science doesn't have a credibility problem, at least not among people who will ever not see it as having a credibility problem. Those people can't be reached anyway so there's little point in trying.

because the lack of it is allowing things like anti-vac sentiment and other crazy ideas to spread like wildfire.

Humans will always be irrational. Fixing the journals won't make humans less rational. You might as well argue that science has a cedibility problem because flat-earthers exist.

Re: Good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

No government money is going to middlemen who offer nothing of value.

It's basically hijacking taxpayer content at this this point and reselling something they got for free.

Make it public

[AndyKron]

If it's publicly funded it should be accessible to the public.

Re: Make it public

[Anonymous Coward]

If it isn't, it is a moral imperative that you free the information.

Many scientists agree with you. Possibly even most.

Re:Laughing!

[Anonymous Coward]

what is the most profitable business in the world?

Religion. They make billions, control billions and don't have to do anything but spread faerie tales and FUD.

Re:Intellectual Property

[lucasnate1]

Considering the fact that the writers are using my tax money to create that property, shouldn't I get some stock/compensation for said property?

These People Will Kill To Protect Their Business

[IonOtter]

Never forget what these people did to Aaron Swartz.

They have killed to protect their business model.

Never doubt they'll do it again.