[aurizon]

Now we need to get the Nobel Committee to say they will only read open source papers - this is a valid option as the paywalls have denied most of the world's 'second tier' countries access for their scientists (to say nothing of interested science readers wherever they are) so going open source will only add to the common pool of knowledge

[sprafa]

It’s truly horrific that as an interested layman I am completely UNABLE to read most scientific papers. And to think about what they did to Aaron Schwartz…

[chrisseaton]

> It’s truly horrific that as an interested layman I am completely UNABLE to read most scientific papers.

You can usually find a pre-print by Googling the title.

Or ask the author for a copy.

(You shouldn't have to do this, but you can until all papers are open access anyway.)

[andi999]

Why is it legal for the author to send you a copy (asking as an author)

[chrisseaton]

They usually send you a 'pre-print' which (in their opinion - I'm not a lawyer) is not subject to the same copyright as the final reversion which was sent to review.

[andi999]

Thanks. Any sources for their opinion? Probably I shd read the copyright release form in more detail, but if you think terms of copyright this won't fly.

[Someone]

With at least some of the major publishers, it nowadays is even legal to put the final paper on a public web site or the Archiv.

https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/how-to-share:

“Authors publishing via subscription models may also self-archive a copy of the accepted version of their manuscript (post-peer review, but prior to copy-editing and typesetting) in an institutional or subject repository, where it can be made openly accessible after an embargo period, in accordance with the relevant Springer Nature self-archiving policy (Nature, Springer, or Palgrave Macmillan)”

(More info at https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/s...)

https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing:

“Accepted Manuscript

Authors can share their accepted manuscript:

Immediately

- via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog

- by updating a preprint in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript

- via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group

- directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use

- for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement

After the embargo period

- via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository

- via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement“*

(Seems a bit less constrained than SpringerNature)

[chrisseaton]

> but if you think terms of copyright this won't fly

Wooah there I'm not giving any legal advice. Ask a lawyer.

[gmueckl]

Even if it is potentially technically illegal, I don't know about anyone who tried to stop it. Note that some release forms explicitly allow author's versions of the covered work for download on the author's website. There's usually a stipulation that they need to be different in some way, for example by not using the same formatting template as the journal/conference version of the paper.

[bidirectional]

Well you are, if you're willing to pay. Or just use Sci-Hub as it seems even many professional researchers do.

[CraftingLinks]

Each article priced as much as a textbook...

[jszymborski]

It is truly awful that publishers do this, however there is a certain website-that-shalt-not-be-named that is papering over that gap while we researchers get our shit together.

[Vinnl]

It's called Sci-Hub.

[baltoo]

think you can email most researchers and get a copy. doesn't count as publishing

[infogulch]

That would be a good step.