|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT |
Thanks, hardmath. As you well know there are several issues here. One is the
data behind, and the learned results of, publicly funded research. Another is
the peer-review process from which learned results become reliable and
considered learned results -- the kind of results suitable for publication in a
peer-reviewed journal such as Nature, perhaps the most respected and
widely read scientific publication out there.
Publication includes very
diligent full-time managing editors and staff, and does not come cheap. Page
costs cover only part of it. Make page costs too dear and some very worthwhile
under-funded research will go under-reported. Our national science funding
agencies are destitute as it is.
Likewise, nationalization of top-tier
journals would of necessity detract from their credibility as unbiased arbiters
of Truth or Consequences and Controversy.
Though I haven't
looked, these scientists' raw data are no doubt available online. Likewise,
Nature herself is readily available -- and photocopyable for personal
use -- at most public universities. Which isn't the same as being instantly
accessible online, but I imagine The System will evolve to where all such
articles will become so available, say six or twelve weeks after initial
dead-tree publication.
Or something...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 09 2012 @ 09:20 PM EDT |
hardmath wrote:
Do you have some special insight into the business
practices of the journal Nature, or is this whole cloth
guesswork?
I assume that this was meant as a condescending,
toungue in cheek, rhetorical question. Since neither the question nor the
answer will likely provide any useful insight to the problem I choose not to
provide an answer to your question.
Later,
cc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|