[Re: Publishers launch free journal access for
libraries<http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/publishers-launch-free-journal-access-for-libraries/2010999.article>(Paul
Jump, THE)]


The primary intended beneficiaries of research are the public that funds
the research.


The primary way in which the public benefits from the research it funds is
if all researchers can access, use, build upon and apply it.


Research is pubished in journals to which researchers' publicly funded
institutions (mostly universities) subscribe.


But institutions can only afford to subscribe to a small fraction of those
journals. because of the high price of journals and the scarcity of
research funds.


That means that researchers are denied access to a large fraction of
publicly funded research.


That means the public is losing a large fraction of the potential returns
on its investment in the research in has funded.


Publishers not only overcharge for access to the publicly funded research
that researchers give them for free and that researchers peer-review for
them for free...


Publishers also deny (embargo) non-subscriber access for 6 months, a year,
2 years, or even longer to the researchers who can use, build upon and
apply it if their institutions cannot afford to subscribe to the journal in
which it is published.


And what do publishers offer as a remedy to the researchers, institutions
and funding councils who have been calling for access to publicly funded
research for all its potential users, not just subscribers?


Public library access: Let researchers from institutions that cannot afford
subscription access betake themselves to a public library whenever they
need to access research published in any journal to which their institution
cannot afford to subscribe.


And this munificence is offered in an online era when all of research could
be at the fingertips of all researchers whenever and wherever they are
doing their scientific or scholarly research.


Meanwhile, let the public console itself by reading the research it has
funded, while the researchers who can use, build upon and apply it are
denied access unless they hightail it to the public library whenever they
need to use anything to which their institutions cannot afford to subscribe.


Good job they didn't propose that it be made accessible at their houses of
worship instead...
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal

Reply via email to