Why Isn't Academic Research Free to Everyone?

[Bronzeage]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

 

[beero1000]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

Unpaid academics? That's a real waste of a college education. It seems you found your own solution. Simply call up the academic and ask him to mail you a copy of his work. I'm sure he would be happy to do that. While your at it, ask him if any of his friends would send you their stuff, too.

 

[beero1000]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

Unpaid academics? That's a real waste of a college education. It seems you found your own solution. Simply call up the academic and ask him to mail you a copy of his work. I'm sure he would be happy to do that. While your at it, ask him if any of his friends would send you their stuff, too.

Still not reading, I see. I guess you are happy with your uninformed opinion. I think I'm done correcting you. Come back when you have a clue.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

Unpaid academics? That's a real waste of a college education. It seems you found your own solution. Simply call up the academic and ask him to mail you a copy of his work. I'm sure he would be happy to do that. While your at it, ask him if any of his friends would send you their stuff, too.

Still not reading, I see. I guess you are happy with your uninformed opinion. I think I'm done correcting you. Come back when you have a clue.

I appreciate your concern with my happiness. I asked a few questions. Whether you answer them or not, is strictly up to you. To say I will die if you never answer, is true, but it won't be from curiosity.

 

[Kharakov]

I appreciate your concern with my happiness. I asked a few questions. Whether you answer them or not, is strictly up to you. To say I will die if you never answer, is true, but it won't be from curiosity.

You have to pay for the answer.

 

[Underseer]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

Unpaid academics? That's a real waste of a college education. It seems you found your own solution. Simply call up the academic and ask him to mail you a copy of his work. I'm sure he would be happy to do that. While your at it, ask him if any of his friends would send you their stuff, too.

They are not paid by the journals. Even the experts who conduct peer review to accept or reject papers are not paid by the journals. The journals are not paying the academics; their only costs are the costs of publishing.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

Unpaid academics? That's a real waste of a college education. It seems you found your own solution. Simply call up the academic and ask him to mail you a copy of his work. I'm sure he would be happy to do that. While your at it, ask him if any of his friends would send you their stuff, too.

They are not paid by the journals. Even the experts who conduct peer review to accept or reject papers are not paid by the journals. The journals are not paying the academics; their only costs are the costs of publishing.

That is the source of my question. Why is it immoral to expect the costs of publishing to be paid by those who benefit from receiving the information?

Is this something truly wrong, or are we just arguing over the price?

 

[Juma]

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

I didn't claim it was.

I don't understand why you feel the results of other people's work should be available to you at no charge, with no regard to the effort required to make such work available. Am I missing something?

If you had bothered to educate yourself on the topic you'd understand why that was so funny.

I am well known for my ignorance on these matters, which is why I asked the question. So, do you have an answer?

Read the links in post #10 to get started.

I don't think anyone is being asked to shoulder the entire bill for the project, just for the privilege of reading the paper. As I said before, online storage is not free. Why is compensation for related costs to make the paper available a bad thing?

So have publically funded servers for storing this stuff.

ArXiv.org has a budget of less than 1.5 cents per download. Elsevier has "pledged" that it will reduce its average price per download to only $11. ArXiv is funded by Cornell University and charitable contributions from the Simons foundation, while Elsevier is a private corporation that posts billions in profit. Amazing, right?

I guess I'm not easily amazed. What would you consider a fair price for the research information you seek?

Fair price does not come into it because academic research is not a business. Any academic would gladly forward a free copy of their research papers to anyone who wants one - they make no money from them. Predatory corporations have tried to take advantage of the unpaid, skilled work of academics in all aspect of publication to make a huge profit, and they are starting to face the backlash. Of course, you'd know this if you took the time to read the articles I linked.

Unpaid academics? That's a real waste of a college education. It seems you found your own solution. Simply call up the academic and ask him to mail you a copy of his work. I'm sure he would be happy to do that. While your at it, ask him if any of his friends would send you their stuff, too.

They are not paid by the journals. Even the experts who conduct peer review to accept or reject papers are not paid by the journals. The journals are not paying the academics; their only costs are the costs of publishing.

That is the source of my question. Why is it immoral to expect the costs of publishing to be paid by those who benefit from receiving the information?

Is this something truly wrong, or are we just arguing over the price?

The problem is the high prices. These papers cost way over any real printing costs. The publisher uses the fact that universities etc must have acces and can pay a lot.

 

[PyramidHead]

That is the source of my question. Why is it immoral to expect the costs of publishing to be paid by those who benefit from receiving the information?

I think the idea is that the cost of publishing academic research should be paid for by the same mechanism that funds the research itself. Public and foundation grants are not profit-driven, so the cost would likely be much lower to boot. And since it would be taxpayer funded, all taxpayers would get to see the data.

 

[Bronzeage]

That is the source of my question. Why is it immoral to expect the costs of publishing to be paid by those who benefit from receiving the information?

I think the idea is that the cost of publishing academic research should be paid for by the same mechanism that funds the research itself. Public and foundation grants are not profit-driven, so the cost would likely be much lower to boot. And since it would be taxpayer funded, all taxpayers would get to see the data.

That's one idea. It would be nice if every research grant included a couple thousand dollars for distribution costs, on the outside chance there would be some interest in the results. Most researchers would probably rather spend the money on more test tubes, or something. The "all taxpayers" model would work better if all taxpayers wanted to see the data. Speaking as a taxpayer, I think it would be more beneficial to buy more test tubes and let those who actually want the data, pay for it.

An economics professor once told me that an unavailable commodity(bread, shoes, research papers, etc) which has demand, but no supply, has a practical price of infinity. This makes the fees charged for access to research data seem a little more reasonable.

 

[fromderinside]

I think the idea is that the cost of publishing academic research should be paid for by the same mechanism that funds the research itself. Public and foundation grants are not profit-driven, so the cost would likely be much lower to boot. And since it would be taxpayer funded, all taxpayers would get to see the data.

That's one idea. It would be nice if every research grant included a couple thousand dollars for distribution costs, on the outside chance there would be some interest in the results. Most researchers would probably rather spend the money on more test tubes, or something. The "all taxpayers" model would work better if all taxpayers wanted to see the data. Speaking as a taxpayer, I think it would be more beneficial to buy more test tubes and let those who actually want the data, pay for it.

An economics professor once told me that an unavailable commodity(bread, shoes, research papers, etc) which has demand, but no supply, has a practical price of infinity. This makes the fees charged for access to research data seem a little more reasonable.

Nice sentiments. However commercial firms are and money now have aspects of individual rights associated with them. If publications are publicly funded scientific record shouldn't corporations also be exempt from charges just as are individuals for similar reasons so goes the reasoning.....

 

[Bronzeage]

That's one idea. It would be nice if every research grant included a couple thousand dollars for distribution costs, on the outside chance there would be some interest in the results. Most researchers would probably rather spend the money on more test tubes, or something. The "all taxpayers" model would work better if all taxpayers wanted to see the data. Speaking as a taxpayer, I think it would be more beneficial to buy more test tubes and let those who actually want the data, pay for it.

An economics professor once told me that an unavailable commodity(bread, shoes, research papers, etc) which has demand, but no supply, has a practical price of infinity. This makes the fees charged for access to research data seem a little more reasonable.

Nice sentiments. However commercial firms are and money now have aspects of individual rights associated with them. If publications are publicly funded scientific record shouldn't corporations also be exempt from charges just as are individuals for similar reasons so goes the reasoning.....

That maybe a different discussion.

My point is, if the charges for access mean greater access, it's a good thing for everyone. When I was in school, the library kept an old test file for most courses. I think it's a common thing for universities. There was a charge of 25 cents per page for regular tests and 50 cents for final exams. I thought it was a fair price and most students agreed, if the line at the door was any indication. The fees paid the minimum wage salary for the student workers who ran the office, as well as the paper and toner, consumed to make the copies.

No one yet has stated how much they have been asked to pay for this desired research data. If this a dispute over the price of the data, we could determine a fair market price. Even in a monopoly situation, there is a limit to what people will pay. A commodity which is priced above the market rate is essentially worthless, just as the unobtainable has infinite cost. All of this can be sensibly discussed by the buyer and the seller.

The principle of "You shouldn't charge for something that didn't cost you anything," brings a moral argument into an economic discussion and this leaves little room for sensible discussion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is this something truly wrong, or are we just arguing over the price?

To me at least that's the issue--they're using a basically monopoly position to collect undue prices.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That is the source of my question. Why is it immoral to expect the costs of publishing to be paid by those who benefit from receiving the information?

I think the idea is that the cost of publishing academic research should be paid for by the same mechanism that funds the research itself. Public and foundation grants are not profit-driven, so the cost would likely be much lower to boot. And since it would be taxpayer funded, all taxpayers would get to see the data.

Alternately, do it like the PACER system (court documents) works--you're charged for it but casual users are not charged. (At the time I signed up for PACER the rule was any bill under $10 for a quarter would be discarded. I have the impression the threshold has gone up but since I've only used it twice, at under $1/time, I haven't paid much attention.) (That being said, PACER also exploits it's monopoly position for fundraising. The price should be a lot lower than it is.)

 

[fromderinside]

Nice sentiments. However commercial firms are and money now have aspects of individual rights associated with them. If publications are publicly funded scientific record shouldn't corporations also be exempt from charges just as are individuals for similar reasons so goes the reasoning.....

That maybe a different discussion.

My point is, if the charges for access mean greater access, it's a good thing for everyone. When I was in school, the library kept an old test file for most courses. I think it's a common thing for universities. There was a charge of 25 cents per page for regular tests and 50 cents for final exams. I thought it was a fair price and most students agreed, if the line at the door was any indication. The fees paid the minimum wage salary for the student workers who ran the office, as well as the paper and toner, consumed to make the copies.

No one yet has stated how much they have been asked to pay for this desired research data. If this a dispute over the price of the data, we could determine a fair market price. Even in a monopoly situation, there is a limit to what people will pay. A commodity which is priced above the market rate is essentially worthless, just as the unobtainable has infinite cost. All of this can be sensibly discussed by the buyer and the seller.

The principle of "You shouldn't charge for something that didn't cost you anything," brings a moral argument into an economic discussion and this leaves little room for sensible discussion.

Research data is most often desired by those who want to generate research data. Its probably not the research data that's desired, for one is willing to pay, but information taken from such research data to produce more research data. Few ever request access to existing research data for the pleasure, the result of desire, of witnessing that data for what it is worth on its face.

Why research data exists is because there is a desire to produce more knowledge. Having access to existing research data allows one to put in context one's own research as well as to find new perspectives hidden in the existing data which the originators had no idea was there.

Price for commodity needs to be reframed in terms of something other than face value of the data. If one desires to hear music one needs a device that permits one to play the desired music as well as to get the desired music. Not so with research data. Research data has its own value but it really has no public audience wanting to possess it. The value of research data to the ones wanting to access it is in the interests of the individual in developing his own research data, his own mind, not a public mind as exists with most music.

The argument one shouldn't pay for something that didn't cost you anything is moot since what one desires has already been set, has cost one, by the one now desires a creation one's own research data and perhaps a theory or two.

 

[Bronzeage]

That maybe a different discussion.

My point is, if the charges for access mean greater access, it's a good thing for everyone. When I was in school, the library kept an old test file for most courses. I think it's a common thing for universities. There was a charge of 25 cents per page for regular tests and 50 cents for final exams. I thought it was a fair price and most students agreed, if the line at the door was any indication. The fees paid the minimum wage salary for the student workers who ran the office, as well as the paper and toner, consumed to make the copies.

No one yet has stated how much they have been asked to pay for this desired research data. If this a dispute over the price of the data, we could determine a fair market price. Even in a monopoly situation, there is a limit to what people will pay. A commodity which is priced above the market rate is essentially worthless, just as the unobtainable has infinite cost. All of this can be sensibly discussed by the buyer and the seller.

The principle of "You shouldn't charge for something that didn't cost you anything," brings a moral argument into an economic discussion and this leaves little room for sensible discussion.

Research data is most often desired by those who want to generate research data. Its probably not the research data that's desired, for one is willing to pay, but information taken from such research data to produce more research data. Few ever request access to existing research data for the pleasure, the result of desire, of witnessing that data for what it is worth on its face.

Why research data exists is because there is a desire to produce more knowledge. Having access to existing research data allows one to put in context one's own research as well as to find new perspectives hidden in the existing data which the originators had no idea was there.

Price for commodity needs to be reframed in terms of something other than face value of the data. If one desires to hear music one needs a device that permits one to play the desired music as well as to get the desired music. Not so with research data. Research data has its own value but it really has no public audience wanting to possess it. The value of research data to the ones wanting to access it is in the interests of the individual in developing his own research data, his own mind, not a public mind as exists with most music.

The argument one shouldn't pay for something that didn't cost you anything is moot since what one desires has already been set, has cost one, by the one now desires a creation one's own research data and perhaps a theory or two.

I've read this post three times and find it too convoluted to comprehend what you intend to mean.

When one is arguing about money, it's always helpful to know how much money is at stake. Do you have any examples of the prices for research data?

 

[PyramidHead]

Research data is most often desired by those who want to generate research data. Its probably not the research data that's desired, for one is willing to pay, but information taken from such research data to produce more research data. Few ever request access to existing research data for the pleasure, the result of desire, of witnessing that data for what it is worth on its face.

Why research data exists is because there is a desire to produce more knowledge. Having access to existing research data allows one to put in context one's own research as well as to find new perspectives hidden in the existing data which the originators had no idea was there.

Price for commodity needs to be reframed in terms of something other than face value of the data. If one desires to hear music one needs a device that permits one to play the desired music as well as to get the desired music. Not so with research data. Research data has its own value but it really has no public audience wanting to possess it. The value of research data to the ones wanting to access it is in the interests of the individual in developing his own research data, his own mind, not a public mind as exists with most music.

The argument one shouldn't pay for something that didn't cost you anything is moot since what one desires has already been set, has cost one, by the one now desires a creation one's own research data and perhaps a theory or two.

I've read this post three times and find it too convoluted to comprehend what you intend to mean.

When one is arguing about money, it's always helpful to know how much money is at stake. Do you have any examples of the prices for research data?

Most papers that are behind paywalls are upwards of $40 USD, some even higher. I can't imagine how it could cost Elsevier even a fraction of that to store a pdf on their server with some search tags. Remember, the work that went into the research has already been paid for, so the argument that usually gets made for downloading music doesn't even apply. And many other papers are free on open-access servers (I would be curious to see how many), and those servers work just fine; maybe they are funded by ads? I honestly don't know. It just seems that there are some papers I can read for free, and some that cost me several meals' worth of cash, and I can't see why there should be such a difference based on the content or delivery platform. The expensive papers aren't better in any discernible way.

 

[Bronzeage]

I've read this post three times and find it too convoluted to comprehend what you intend to mean.

When one is arguing about money, it's always helpful to know how much money is at stake. Do you have any examples of the prices for research data?

Most papers that are behind paywalls are upwards of $40 USD, some even higher. I can't imagine how it could cost Elsevier even a fraction of that to store a pdf on their server with some search tags. Remember, the work that went into the research has already been paid for, so the argument that usually gets made for downloading music doesn't even apply. And many other papers are free on open-access servers (I would be curious to see how many), and those servers work just fine; maybe they are funded by ads? I honestly don't know. It just seems that there are some papers I can read for free, and some that cost me several meals' worth of cash, and I can't see why there should be such a difference based on the content or delivery platform. The expensive papers aren't better in any discernible way.

What would a comparable printed copy cost?

 

[PyramidHead]

I've never bought a printed copy of any journal article since the internet became a thing, so I don't know.