| Hello. Mid-career scientist/engineer/entrepreneur here. The majority of academics I have talked to about this in real life (let's say... 30-40 out of 50) thought we sorely needed open access in terms of: - The public pays for science, they should be able to see the result - Lots of out-of-work and between-jobs academics, scientists-turned-entrepreneur, scientists in small companies etc. that can't access a research library - It's morally wrong to have the public sector hand so much money to a few private companies like Elsevier for doing very little besides existing and rent-seeking. - Scientists and the public in developing countries and third world countries have a very limited ability to get involved in global science and engineering when it's paywalled. - In fields like medicine especially, paywalls are literally preventing the public from knowing how to be healthy. Have you considered that maybe the reason why for example, "The vast majority of all published papers is read only by the reviewers." is because it's not openly and freely published? I suspect perhaps the reason you are being downvoted (on other sites presumably) is because most people think your view is wrong or unacceptable i.e. immoral. Have you considered that possibility? |