[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.