|
|
|
|
|
|
by ikeboy
3738 days ago
|
|
|
You can either charge the author customer, which is what open access does, or charge the reader customer, which is what non open access does. Insisting that the reader customer not pay just increases the costs elsewhere. If the benefits of open access are considered to be worth more than the amount lost by not charging for access, then you need to fund that from elsewhere. If every grant costs an extra $2,000, there will be less grants, it's just math. (Previously I was told that the cost is minuscule compared to the cost of the study itself in general, in which it won't have a large effect. But I haven't seen data.) If we decide we want the government to also pay the cost of publication, as opposed to having readers pay, great. But it might be expensive, again, data would be helpful. Blanket statements like "taxpayers paid for it, therefore it should be open" ignore the reality that publishers subsidize publication precisely because they charge for access. |
|
|
But non open access does it too! You have to pay to get published.