|
|
|
| Authored by: hardmath on Sunday, June 10 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
First let me apologize for the condescension of my tone. I mean to question the
fairness of your interpretation of the paywall, not you personally. We are
Grokolleagues.
Of course questioning fairness (generally) is ruder than mere condescension, so
this is a likely case of my jumping out of the pan and into the fire. However a
few words to narrow the issue are in order.
That Nature is here charging $32 for immediate access to the full article is
typical of their longstanding business practice, and the nearly two dozen
authors of this one paper are unlikely to be in position either to establish or
completely eliminate that, having become established. Nor do I accept that the
proceeds of the paywall are at all for the individual authors' benefit.
On occasion Nature has made online articles of particular scientific importance
available without cost. I suspect this article failed their criteria for such
treatment because it has a diffuse focus and does not invite much in the way of
replication of experimental results.
For the record I'm a supporter of the open access policy for government
(taxpayer) funded research, and a critic of privately funded research to the
extent that results which fail to support corporate interests are often
suppressed.
Finally I'm being somewhat as tough on you as I would on myself for what I took
to be an aspersion cast upon those authors' motives. I'm not the judge of you,
so sorry about that, and if I spoke too sharply, it was out of respect for your
opinion and truly not meant spitefully.
Regards,
Chip "hardmath" Eastham
---
"Prolog is an efficient programming language because it is a very stupid theorem
prover." -- Richard O'Keefe[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
