[Day] My position [at NSF] was, if you're going to use public funds, then the public ought to benefit. And the way the public benefits is if they can talk to each other. You see, if we hadn't done that, you wouldn't have much of the national network that we have today.
[Searcher] This reminds me of today's Open Access argument.
[Day] I’ve heard about that, but I don't know very much about it.
[Searcher] Major funding for scientific research comes from the government. University researchers who are awarded government funds publish in journals that are owned by for-profit publishers, for which libraries and individuals have to pay thousands of dollars for subscriptions or the purchase of individual articles. Many say now that if the government is funding so much of this research, the findings should be available to the public for free, or for very little money, because tax dollars are supporting the activity.
[Day] I think that probably makes sense. Commercial publishers will make money regardless. I guarantee you they're not going out of business. They've taken advantage of that in the past, for some of the things that they charge. If the public didn't provide the funds for them to publish, a lot of research would not get published.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 4/01/2005 10:41:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
