[jszymborski]

This is the case for a small subsection of articles.

More to the point, however, is why in the world should the people who funded the project get delayed access?

Things move quickly, and when half a year passes, you hardly have access to cutting-edge research.

[tertius]

> Things move quickly, and when half a year passes, you hardly have access to cutting-edge research.

Ah yes, things move very quickly in science... You have to keep up with the literature!

Define the group of people for who this is actually useful and then show me the subset (within the same population) who do not have access.

I.e. American scientists and American research i.e. American funding.

You understand that scientists agree to this when they choose to publish in journals like nature? And money is only a part of research. Can the scientists then not decide to go into these agreements?

(I don't personally have to agree with these agreements. Impact factor is a cruel overlord).

[jszymborski]

The argument that "most people wouldn't know what to do with papers even if they had access" is what perpetuates it. If discoveries are important enough to report about in the news, they're important enough for me to read the underlying research.

My formal training hasn't taught me the first thing about atmospheric sciences or gender studies, but my access to papers has allowed me to explore them. I'm no expert in either field, and I understand half of what I'm reading, but it's information I just can't get in a textbook.

There is not a professor, post-doc, or grad student that I know that would not publish in Nature or Cell if it meant that it would mean the brutal murder of an adorable basket of kittens, let alone over open-access.

Scientific publishing is a cancer, and the arguments I've listed aren't even the beginning of the problems I have with the industry.

[tertius]

You argued that it should be published in public immediately. You didn't say why this is important.

Clearly it's open important for those who actually have to keep up with the literature and they're in institutions that have access. (Again, limiting this to American research & American funding).

I like reading papers, especially in areas that I'm not trained in. But I don't need to keep up with research that was published in the past 6 month. There is no practical need.

> Scientific publishing is a cancer.

Without getting into specifics, I can agree in general. You should talk off the record (think conference) to some editors to see what they think about the whole situation.

[tertius]

> More to the point, however, is why in the world should the people who funded the project get delayed access?

Have you actually tried to answer this question yourself?