If the sane price is an optional "Donate to keep this site going" link, then ok. But only free access, without authentication or payment, to scientific papers, is sane. IMHO.
Might this be a case where the best resolution would be to have the government (which is at least partially funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add a ledger of papers as a proof of investment?
The cost of maintaining a free and open DB of scientific advances and publications would be so incredibly insignificant compared to both the value and the continued investment in those advancements.
> Might this be a case where the best resolution would be to have the government (which is at least partially funding nearly all of these papers) step in and add a ledger of papers as a proof of investment?
I feel that we're halfway there already and are gaining ground. Does Pubmed Central [0] (a government-hosted open access repository for NIH-funded work) count as a "ledger" like you're referring to? The NSF's site does a good job of explaining current US open access policy [1]. There are occasional attempts to expand the open access mandate by legislation, such as FASTR [2]. A hypothetical expansion of the open access mandate to apply to all works from /institutions/ that receive indirect costs, not just individual projects that receive direct costs, would open things up even more.
Well, some research venues (and publication venues) are not government-funded, and even if they are indirectly government funded, it's more of a sophistry than something which would make publishers hand over copies of the papers.
Also, a per-government ledger would not be super-practicable. But if, say, the US, the EU and China would agree on something like this, and implement it, and have a common ledger, then it would not be some a big leap to make it properly international. Maybe even UN-based.
I share the sentiment insofar as free access would benefit my own sanity, except when it is about hording.
On the other hand, there is a slippery sloap to decide what isn't scientific so much as to not be required open knowledge.
By the way, specialist knowledge and open knowledge is kind of a dichotomy. You would need to define the intersection of both. Suddenly you are looking at a patent system. Pay to Quote, citation fees, news websites already are demanding this from google, here in Germany, inuding Springer Press
The cost of maintaining a free and open DB of scientific advances and publications would be so incredibly insignificant compared to both the value and the continued investment in those advancements.