Why Isn't Academic Research Free to Everyone?

[fromderinside]

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?

What I mean is that the commercial profit model needs be modified to reflect the actual use and importance of the information rather than the cost to publish which is already being undercut by online journals. Articles are only important as vehicles for further research. The profit center should be to those exploiting outcomes from research rather than the information about the research to research users.

Small academic institution one year major journal subscription $6000, journal member subscription $800, candidate subscription $50. Large academic institution subscription $10,000, Aerospace multinational subscription $16000, article about $30 as of 2002. First authors usually get between 10 and 25 copies to distribute as they prefer.*

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.

The expensive papers aren't better in any discernible way.

Tip of iceberg here.

I used to subscribe to Advances in Comparative Neurophysiology which is a book set where individual book costs in the set range from $700 to $3000. I quite after 15 years, 30 publications and over $40000. At Boeing page costs were (as of 2002) about $300 a page which is cheap compared to refereed journals. Scientists still like hard copy. That pdf storage isn't even computed in the costs for most companies. The cost for servers, security, maintenance, interface, and the like are really costly since the houses need to keep up with technology. The real costs, editing, reviewing, acquiring the information and advertising (yes advertising) are the real cost drivers.

Actually more expensive papers are generally referenced more in subsequent articles, especially those articles that become germinal for future students and in economic exploitation. They're better.**

^{_{*I haven't publishes in a refereed journal in 20 years, but, I have kept up as a teacher and researcher in academia then industry.}}

** ^{_{I refer to journals like Journal of Acoustical Society of America, Brain Research, Journal of Neurophysiology, Behavioral Neuroscience and its mate Journal of Comparative Psychology (divided in 1983 after I quit publishing in the area)}}

 

[bilby]

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?

Dramatically less than a copy chiselled into a block of marble or sandstone; or a copy written on parchment with a quill, with the opening capital letter of each paragraph illuminated using coloured ink and gold leaf; or a copy scribed into a clay tabled with a stylus and then baked in a kiln.

Why is the potential cost of the information if supplied on an obsolete medium important?

 

[Bronzeage]

What would a comparable printed copy cost?

Dramatically less than a copy chiselled into a block of marble or sandstone; or a copy written on parchment with a quill, with the opening capital letter of each paragraph illuminated using coloured ink and gold leaf; or a copy scribed into a clay tabled with a stylus and then baked in a kiln.

Why is the potential cost of the information if supplied on an obsolete medium important?

Because the chief competition for new technology is the old technology. Were paper versions of research supplied at no cost, in the days before digital medium?

Whenever someone claims to be entitled to something, my first question is, what does it cost, and who is really paying for it.

 

[lpetrich]

Dead-tree copying is much more expensive and awkward than online copying.

Here's some stuff on how arXiv is managed:
arXiv five-year member pledges - CUL Public Wiki - Confluence
arXiv.org help - arXiv Business Support and Governance Model

I looked in the Public Library of Science sites and I found
Financials | PLOS

So there is no need to act as if making journals open-access is going to pick one's pocket or that it will be financially ruinous.

 

[lpetrich]

Furthermore, if it is so important that a journal-article server be financed by its readers' financial contributions, then it would be MUCH better to charge much less and to set up a system of micropayments. If the server software charges 10 cents per article and if one pays $10, then one gets to read 100 articles before one's money runs out.

BTW, arXiv now has nearly a million articles. Yet it is not only going strong, it is expanding into new fields.

 

[fromderinside]

Because the chief competition for new technology is the old technology. Were paper versions of research supplied at no cost, in the days before digital medium?

Whenever someone claims to be entitled to something, my first question is, what does it cost, and who is really paying for it.

Its really tough to distinguish between one who wants to use an article to make a point from one who whats to use an article to explore for experimental ideas. Is the student at university which pays several million a year for subscriptions not paying for documents with her tuition?

What really burns is the freelance scientist unaffiliated with university or company having to pay to get the same access as does the student or corporate researcher. Such puts unfair burdens on potential start ups with little money which actually need access as part of their exploitation fertilizer.

As for the general public I say let them pay in proportion to cost to hold and sustain material. While the article may only be a few pages it is unlikely that many will want to access it. Ergo high cost for article.

 

[Shadowy Man]

First authors usually get between 10 and 25 copies to distribute as they prefer.

When I used to publish, we had to pay extra for that.

In the field of astrophysics, most authors submit their articles to the online 'arxiv' and they are freely available there and indexed at the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS). It's rare to not be able to get a copy of an astrophysics article without paying. (too many negatives in that sentence: I meant to say it's relatively easy to get articles for free.)

 

[fromderinside]

First authors usually get between 10 and 25 copies to distribute as they prefer.

When I used to publish, we had to pay extra for that.

In the field of astrophysics, most authors submit their articles to the online 'arxiv' and they are freely available there and indexed at the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS). It's rare to not be able to get a copy of an astrophysics article without paying. (too many negatives in that sentence: I meant to say it's relatively easy to get articles for free.)

Writer journal payment policy is probably relative to potential readership against costs. I worked in two areas, the first has some tens of thousands of potential readers, the other has fewer than 1000 potential readers. I paid only once in the low potential reader category. Yet I know people who work in areas so specialized that only a few dozen potential readers exist. They all claim to pay.

The universities and corporations with which I worked also had relatively large numbers of readers so they only paid the base subscription fees. At places like Reed college, 1500 students, they pay premium costs for publication subscriptions while at Cal Tech, 2200 students (1000 undergrad and 1200 grad), the number of contributors seems to keep subscription costs down.

 

[Bronzeage]

Because the chief competition for new technology is the old technology. Were paper versions of research supplied at no cost, in the days before digital medium?

Whenever someone claims to be entitled to something, my first question is, what does it cost, and who is really paying for it.

Its really tough to distinguish between one who wants to use an article to make a point from one who whats to use an article to explore for experimental ideas. Is the student at university which pays several million a year for subscriptions not paying for documents with her tuition?

What really burns is the freelance scientist unaffiliated with university or company having to pay to get the same access as does the student or corporate researcher. Such puts unfair burdens on potential start ups with little money which actually need access as part of their exploitation fertilizer.

As for the general public I say let them pay in proportion to cost to hold and sustain material. While the article may only be a few pages it is unlikely that many will want to access it. Ergo high cost for article.

What you propose is a general commission which will apportion costs to access research material. It's a great idea, but any regulation must contain the method to pay for putting it into effect, so there's another expense.

I'm not sure what my tuition paid for, but it certainly never paid for textbooks or any of the other required documents. I don't think anyone's basic tuition actually covers the true expense of their education. The difference in the cost is seen as an investment with an uncertain return. The university believes there will be a payoff. If those who want to sell research information probably don't see a similar potential in those who want free data and thus, want the money upfront.

As for "start ups with little money", how much of their initial capital must be spent on buying research papers?

 

[doubtingt]

The real costs, editing, reviewing, acquiring the information and advertising (yes advertising) are the real cost drivers.

Editing, reviewing, and acquiring the info don't cost the journal hardly anything. All that work is done by the researchers themselves who typically get paid $0 from journals for these services. As for advertising, that only exist to make the journal profits and doesn't help the science itself at all. In fact, like most aspects of the private sector, it hurts the science by incentivising hype and distortion.

The cost of the important aspects of peer reviewed publishing of science already mostly paid for by taxpayers via the cost of the University researchers' salaries. Making the whole thing publicly funded and thus free access to all would mean adding rather negligible costs of a few proofers, administratros, IT folks, servers, and databases. The total cost to taxpayers would be a fraction of what it is now which includes having to pay for all libraries and Universities to have subscriptions, without any threat to quality, since the real quality control is already done by University researchers.

Hard copy journals will be dead anyway in a couple decades, along with the old-guard researchers who are largely the ones that still rely on them. We should just move that way more quickly, making most publishing purely electronic, and the peer review and publishing processes entirely and directly publicly funded rather than indirectly and at 10 times the cost as it is now.