« Google Research Awards - call open to staff in universities worldwide | Main | How to write in the age of distraction »


Thanks for informing me about the "economic implications of alternative scholarly publication models". The conclusions sound wonderful. But now I have to read the report and determine for myself whether the financial benefits are as large as noted. However, I do believe that we limit access and thus the use of information when we publish solely in tightly controlled paid journals. Open access publishing is definitely preferable, but there is a cost that must be borne by someone - a cost to organize the review of the article, to edit it, convert it to various formats (e.g., html, pdf, and/or mp3), and present it to the public (presentation on your website or someone elses, access to the internet, etc.,). The use of volunteers is welcomed, but over the long run someone has to organize the publication and ensure that quality standards are maintained. Think of Wikipedia, they primarily run on volunteers, but they still need to gather funds to support the initiative. One must think of the above costs as well as the equipment to do it, the software, and maintenance costs. We all like stuff for free, but there is always a cost - Who is going to pay for it or donate time equipment, etc. over the LONG term? Is this something an institution would like to donate its resources to? Is this something the government should sponsor as it hopes to recoup costs when ideas that are freely available spur development and new businesses?

The comments to this entry are closed.