*shakes fist at academic paywalls*

[bunn]

How many people really want to read this article I desire about crime in Roman Egypt, published 1963 - and are able to do so?  I'm guessing maybe 6, but I think that might even be an overestimate.  And there isn't even a way to pay an exorbitant fee and get access to the bloody thing!   I know it is there, but it might as well be sealed inside a capsule on the bloody Moon.

I was reading a 'success story' article today about someone using Google Adsense to successfully monetise content, and it occurs to me that rather than stick all these bloody paywalls everywhere and make it next to impossible to get through the sodding things, it might be a better thing for everyone involved if they just bunged them up - past a certain date in the past maybe - as freeware on cheap hosting, and ran a really good properly structured set of ad campaigns against them.

Is it over-suspicious to suspect that universities wouldn't like this as it might mean people actually learning stuff and drawing conclusions without their expensive mediation...?  Or is is just OMG, advertising!  That's like... TRADE!  OH THE HORROR!!!  We'll be knighting the grandchildren of mill-owners next and then where will we be?

Comments

[bunn.livejournal.com]

But aren't universities more or less the only customers of academic publishers? I am probably mistaken about the mechanism here, but it seems to me that if you have a bunch of businesses that insist on operating in a way that inconveniences their core customer base, it ought to be possible for that core customer base to get something done about it?

I know they don't host the paywalls, but if universities can't get anything done about changing copyright legislation that was never intended to deal with today's technology, then - who can?

[kargicq.livejournal.com]

Who can? Don't know. Have a bit of a google - there are various campaigns going on at the moment, e.g. scientists boycotting the more egregious publishers, such as Elsevier. But the government assesses us (and gives universities money) on the basis of our publications, so if boycotting a publisher means you don't get your paper into that high-impact journal, you have damaged your career and your university. So people carry on paying journals to publish our publicly-funded work, and then paying them again to let us read it, even though everyone on the academic side of the issue believes this is monstrous...

Neuromancer

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I had a look at thecostofknowledge.com but I was... slightly underwhelmed. It seemed to be a bit piecemeal. In particular, they argue against the sales of bundled subscriptions which 'force' libraries to take out subs to obscure journals, which kind of seems like part of the problem, not part of the solution. From my selfish point of view, I *want* access to back copies of obscure journals that will never be particularly commercially viable, and that protest seems likely to put them further out of reach, if anything.

And again, this seems like grass-roots researcher/academic protest about something that has just grown up without really being planned, and from my external viewpoint, I am a little surprised that instead of individuals going 'OI, I don't like this particular aspect' there isn't some working group that can produce a proper plan and present it to governments as a recommendation? Maybe that is pie in the sky!