|
You have a very principled position, one that I don't necessarily disagree with[1]. However, information is, in fact, power, and the power disparity in the currently legal model, between those with access to a well-funded research library and those without, is very great. And like most power disparities, it is self-sustaining; it will not change without an equally powerful force changing it. [1] Two provisos: the costs of professional publishing a journal is per-issue; perhaps, per-paper. Not per-copy. A pay-to-publish model would put incentives in the right place, but is fraught with a whole stack of conflicts of interest. Which is being actively exploited. So, ... yeah. Second, the consumer-pays model actively hurts researchers themselves, who would like to see their research disseminated as widely as possible. "If I do research funded by UK tax money and publish it, should that paper be freely available to Americans too, or only to UK tax payers?" Want to bet what researchers' answer to that question would be? Fortunately for me, I was a computer scientist. In that field, researchers (almost?) universally make their papers freely available, often in complete disregard of their publishing venue's rules (with no consequences). So, to medicine and physics and what-not, I can only say phtththp. |