Just encourage people to upload their paper to an open access archive like arXiv first. Very few journals disallow this, it's just that authors are either too lazy or just don't want to make their paper publicly available.
Yeah same in some fields of Physics, for example all theoretical stuff, along with most optical or optomechanical stuff is always on the arXiv, however for example some obscure paper on seismic noise might only be in some very expensive journal
Forget sexy and lucrative. You make the NSF and NIH et al. require a link to an open website like Arxiv for each paper mentioned in an annual report. Instead of the crazy system that NSF currently has where you have to upload PDFs to their private Department of Energy archival service that taxpayers can’t access.
Well APS opened a new open access journal PRX which is more prestigious even than PRL, so I don't think that's the problem. Also Nature, which is like, the most prestigious, is also open access...
It surprised me as well. But apparently, it's up to the authors (or their institution) to choose.
> From January 2021, authors submitting primary research articles* to Nature will be able to choose to publish their work using either the traditional publishing route OR Open Access.
> *Non-primary research (e.g. Reviews, Comments, News & Views) is not eligible for Open Access and is only published using the traditional publishing route.
From the list of latest articles[1], you can see it's indeed not the most popular option. Only one in seven articles from the last few pages is OA.
The other OA journals still cost money that needs to be budgeted, i. e. not something you would pay out of your pocket. For example PLOS One charges you $ 1749. I guess the prices for publishing the articles may actually converge on a fair price for the reputation associated with the journal.
no idea where to start. The entire business model needs to be changed? I feel like its highly intertwined with the entire academia ecosystem, from grants, fundings, universities etc.
But I think there were claims before that these journals were basically using their reputation to make outsized profits? i.e. all they do is receive publications, charge universities outrageous fees to access, and don't even pay reviewers? Thus an increasing number of predatory journals trying to take advantage of this model. If that is proven to be true I guess there is a case for nationalizing research publication work?
Honestly I have no idea though, I don't know enough details about this
Imagine the live map of the money-flow around the research/review/publishing/usage. It could give us some hints.
Pain becomes palpable If one think about it. Maybe some thermodynamically provable illustrations of the energy around the issue would help us illustrate the problem (read: the scale of sickness of the 'intellectual property')
My hunch is that we're at the stage where KWh could - and should be used as the universal money (with all implications and hurdles it may signal)
(I think it meant) "If you visualize the monetary flow in the article publishing business, the "sickness" involved («pain») becomes visible: the energy waste becomes so apparent that it suggests replacing money directly with energy".
Concept that its author wanted to stress by crafting an energy consuming post.
(Joeberon, you never had to extensively decrypt the texts of theoretical philosophers of the latest centuries, had you ;) )
It varies depending on the subject area and publisher. Some are free to publish, some have a few hundred dollars a page or more for color (as though they actually print them still), where others might charge thousands to balance the operation costs of a printing company along with journal subscribers. Some journals essentially demand a first born.