Trump Could Mandate Free Access To Federally Funded Research Papers (arstechnica.com) 194
The White House is rumored to be working on an executive order that would require all scientific papers that are based on federally funded research to be made available online free of charge as soon as they are published. That would supersede a 2013 rule issued by the Obama White House that required federally funded papers to become freely available one year after publication. Ars Technica reports: The White House hasn't actually announced the new policy yet, but the rumors were enough to get the attention of scientific publishers. Last week more than 100 publishing organizations signed a letter calling on the Trump administration to scrap the proposal. The letter warned that an open access mandate would "jeopardize the intellectual property of American organizations engaged in the creation of high-quality peer-reviewed journals and research articles." Without the ability to charge the public for articles, scientific journals would have to pass those costs on to researchers or taxpayers, the letter warns.
There is undoubtedly some truth to that -- many open access journals charge fees to authors. These fees range widely -- from a few hundred dollars to several thousand. If the federal government mandated open access for all federally funded research, researchers would presumably see some increases in the fees they pay to publish their articles in top-tier journals. But supporters of the open access model question how much value traditional scientific publishers actually add. The peer-review process is typically carried out by working scientists on a volunteer basis. Meanwhile, you'd expect the Internet to reduce the costs of distributing scientific journals. Instead, the cost of subscribing to scientific journals has been rising much faster than inflation in recent years.
There is undoubtedly some truth to that -- many open access journals charge fees to authors. These fees range widely -- from a few hundred dollars to several thousand. If the federal government mandated open access for all federally funded research, researchers would presumably see some increases in the fees they pay to publish their articles in top-tier journals. But supporters of the open access model question how much value traditional scientific publishers actually add. The peer-review process is typically carried out by working scientists on a volunteer basis. Meanwhile, you'd expect the Internet to reduce the costs of distributing scientific journals. Instead, the cost of subscribing to scientific journals has been rising much faster than inflation in recent years.
By what right?!?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. How dare they set conditions of grant! Have they no sense of what "grant" means?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt paywalling this research is stopping China from obtaining the research. It's not like this research is locked up and only available to a specific group of people.
These scientific publishers want to keep making money, but publishing an online journal is much cheaper then it use to be. The summary mentions these publishers just keep charging more though.
All while the taxpayers are the ones funding the work. Maybe we can compromise. 6 months of paywall, then it all goes to the public commons where it b
Re: By what right?!?! (Score:2)
The same should apply to research funded by other governments too.
Re:By what right?!?! (Score:5, Interesting)
Without the ability to charge the public for articles, scientific journals would have to pass those costs on to researchers or taxpayers, the letter warns.
It's a lose/lose situation. To get/maintain tenure or its equivalent in other institutions, you need to score above a certain point in whatever assessment system your academic institution is using. To do that, you need to publish in A-rated journals, most of which are owned by Elsevier or similar predatory publishers. If they can't charge institutions an arm and a leg to buy their mass-produced pulp, they'll charge the same institutions an arm and a leg to publish in their mass-produced pulp. Either way, the predators win.
The only way to fix this is to change the system to no longer incentivise feeding the predators, which would require changing how most of the world's academic institutions assess their staff. The predators have a point, the system is set up to incentivise feeding them and adding a requirement for open access won't change that.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternatively, universities could stop offering tenure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:By what right?!?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, you know, completely separate teaching and research. A sizable percentage of the researchers can't teach for crap anyway, so just have two tracks: a research track, where you're paid more and teach little or not at all, but have no tenure (and no disincentive to switch back and forth between universities and industry), and a tenure teaching track, where you aren't contributing to future university profits with your research, and thus get paid less, but have tenure.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, completely separate teaching and research.
To some extent they are. I don't see how this has much to do with the original issue, though.
a research track, where you're paid more and teach little or not at all,
That's already often the case as researchers are either not professors or buy themselves out of it. But removing tenure from the latter track is still going to compromise supply. Indeed, it's hard to get decent non-teaching staff. The issue with paying more is that pay is easy to roll b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. Tenure started in public schools right around the time the first (private) research university came into existence. Its purpose has nothing to do with research. Rather, tenure was designed to allow teachers to teach controversial subjects without risking their jobs, and to prevent schools from firing teachers without cause. This is considerably more importa
Re: (Score:2)
Or, to put it another way, even though a single good or bad teacher could certainly have an impact on the odds of someone choosing to donate money to a given program, or have an affect on students' future success, which in aggregate contributes to the school's good reputation, that effect isn't readily quantif
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or, you know, completely separate teaching and research. A sizable percentage of the researchers can't teach for crap anyway, so just have two tracks: a research track, where you're paid more and teach little or not at all, but have no tenure (and no disincentive to switch back and forth between universities and industry), and a tenure teaching track, where you aren't contributing to future university profits with your research, and thus get paid less, but have tenure.
I've been advocating for this for a long time.
I went back for a PhD in some hard sciences after getting a masters in education. It was eye-opening how grossly incompetent most PhDs are when it comes to teaching. I was surrounded by dozens of great researchers, and there was all of one functional teacher among them.
It was really clear to me then that the best course of action would be to split the two. The researchers have to be accessible to the teaching faculty, but they do need to be separate and distinct
Re: (Score:2)
Or university labs could start accepting corporate sponsorships, put up advertising all over the campus, allow admins to hand out plum corporate research grants, and most importantly, publish branded science journals.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds more like a *them* problem than a *my tax money* problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Its not like we payed for them or anything! What an overstep of authority.
If a bunch of monkeys in a white mansion do random stuff for long enough, eventually they are bound to do something sensible, even if it is by sheer coincidence.
Re: By what right?!?! (Score:2)
I think the quote you are looking for is not a bunch of monkeys producing Shakespeare, but rather - Even a broken clock is right twice a day - Benjamin Franklin
This rule endangers science journals. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How can science even be done without paywalling publicly funded research?
Yeah it is hard to imagine.
OK, not really. It does remind me of one of my favorite quotes though, from the Climategate emails; "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." - Phil Jones.
Notwithstanding the fact that comment represents the complete antithesis of the scientific method, it's also work that was financed by the public, and they expect us to make huge and profound public policy decisions based
Re: (Score:2)
How can science even be done without paywalling publicly funded research?
Yeah it is hard to imagine.
The physics community has been making preprints publicly available for years with arxiv.org [arxiv.org].
So far the sky has failed to fall.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're lying. My papers are on the arXiv, and they've all been published in good journals. Hell, papers that have won nobel prizes are on the arXiv. See:https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03837 and https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph... [arxiv.org]
Papers by Stephen Hawking, Roger Penrose, Ed Witten, Saul Perlmutter, and hundreds of the world's best physicists are on there.
Re: (Score:2)
What has become apparent in the years since is these "scientists" are quite happy to game the journals, and the journals themselves are hardly objective. Peer review is like an old boys club - you scratch my back. I'll scratch yours. If you are not part of the club you are ostracized.
It's not particular to climate science either. Peer review in the field of medicine and human health is quite broken as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So your answer to my question is: no, there are no articles. That's not surprising, because anthropogenic climate change is very real - your "opinions" about the peer-review system notwithstanding.
Actually there are many papers by actual scientists you don't like. I suspect you spend no time at all reading any of it anyway, but scihub is great for getting around paywalls if you ever decide to.
A good place to start would be Judith Curry's blog, particularly the Week in Review lists. Lots of good links to both research papers, and the politics of climate science. Dr Curry is hated by the doomer community for being honest about the huge uncertainties in said science.
https://judithcurry.com/ [judithcurry.com]
Re:This rule endangers science journals. (Score:5, Interesting)
Without that income science journals are going to have a much harder time of things.
Journals currently earn income by selling subscriptions, especially to institutions.
But that is not the only revenue model. Instead of "reader pays" they can use "author pays". The cost of publishing will be built into the grant.
It is also important to require the results of ALL federally funded research to be published, even (or especially) if it is not accepted for publication. Negative results (Drug X does NOT cure cancer) are often even more important than positive results. Michelson and Morley [wikipedia.org] did an experiment that failed, and eventually, that failure led to a revolution in physics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Journals use all of the revenue models you mentioned, and more.
(1) Author pays to publish in journal.
(2) Institution pays to subscribe to journal.
(3) John Q. Public pays $30-100 for a single article.
(4) Manuscripts submitted for publication are vetted, for FREE, by professors and sc
Re: (Score:2)
Without that income, publishers are going to have a much harder time of things.
Without those expenses, scientists (and science) are going to have a much easier time of things. The worst that can happen is that we are forced to read a paper with typos or misplaced captions (gasp!).
Go Trump! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Go Trump! (Score:2)
The exact phrase is - Even a broken clock is right twice a day - attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Unfortunately, most millennials have no clue what that means. A broken clock, ro them, projects no display.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the sad case of the lightbulb jokes. Love 'em, but try to explain changing a lightbulb to today's kids. The LED bulbs are older than they are.
I'd rather have the stopped clock (Score:2)
More like once a lifetime. And only half-right that time, since most federally funded research is already highly accessible. Make that one-third or less right. A lot of the federally funded research that is not accessible is hidden because of secretive "security-justified" classifications that are often unjustified (and which you may safely wager will not be revealed by this proposal).
Ever hear of James Ellis? Probably not. He was the GCHQ spook who sort of developed public key cryptography some years befor
Re: (Score:2)
A broken clock is right twice a day.
Forgive me for correcting you, but in Trumps' case it had to be done.
a good idea (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's super good idea, and he should get some real cred if he implements it. The current scientific journal structure has lots of problems, and most of them would be fixed if the fed mandated that all federally-funded research must be published open-access. Peer review does not work well with private enterprise. Capitalism is awesome, but it doesn't work for everything, and it doesn't work well for the process of basic scientific research.
To make it work for real, there would need to be some sort of enhanced professional or financial incentive for peer reviewers, and probably some sort of federal support to the outfits that do the open-access publication. The journals still need some form of funding, and it ultimately comes from federal dollars in some form or another. Funding structures would need to be slightly modified to make it work.
Re: (Score:2)
' Capitalism is awesome, but it doesn't work for everything'
Capitalism is exactly the motivation behind the mandate. Business don't allow the fruit of their investments to be used by another business gratis.
The American people have the right to see all work produced by grants, upon submission and without
paying an third party an unnecessary share.
It's a shrewd decision by a president elected because he promised to treat treasury funds with a business like attitude.
Questionably he's done a better job at it pu
Re: (Score:2)
Basic research is VERY far removed from what businesses actually need. What really happens is that basic research goes to other researchers, who produce more basic research, which goes to slightly more applied researchers, who do more research, etc. etc. E
Oh come on (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone else see this as something rather unlikely to come from the administration? Scientists say that Open Publication is good for the world. There are deep-pockets publishers on the other side, with rent-seeking to protect. You tell me how this is likely to go.
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What if it's not a can he's kicking? Maybe it's a beautiful Christmas vase?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't have a devil-may-care attitude WRT to toes. He's constantly at war with anyone or institution that represents adult supervision toward his behavior. He's sucks up to the Christians and Fox simply because they help him generate things he can whine about. He's got no policies for anything, he defines himself by what he can whine about. There's nothing more to it than that.
Re:Oh come on (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty amazing to claim "not kicking the can down the road" about an administration (and congress, fully controlled by Republicans for 2 of Trump's 3 years in office) which has greatly increased deficit spending during a record-length period of sustained economic growth.
Only several years ago, during Obama's 2nd term where deficits returned from sky-high stimulus spending back to Bush era deficits (hardly a pride-worthy accomplishment), Republicans were calling for a balanced budget, even a constitutional amendment to require balancing the budget. Now just look at them!
If we can't manage to balance budgets and start paying down accumulated dept during the best of times, when ever will we? And who will be the adults capable of fiscal responsibility? Democrats?!?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine he's too scared of scientific journal publishers.
Probably not. Trump ignores science completely.
Re: (Score:2)
This is one small step toward making the world a little bit better. If it happens, of course, and yes, I wouldn't be surprised i
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists say that Open Publication is good for the world.
But is that a consensus or just the scientists who are not part of the club?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists say that Open Publication is good for the world. There are deep-pockets publishers on the other side, with rent-seeking to protect. You tell me how this is likely to go.
Well since that was put in place under Democrats, why is it so hard to believe the policy is reversed by the "other side".
Republicans are for real science, unlike Democrats (countless examples of them throwing scientific method out the window and using scientism as a religion).
Re: (Score:2)
Republicans are for real science, unlike Democrats (countless examples of them throwing scientific method out the window and using scientism as a religion).
Pfff, you conflate and confuse regular Republicans and Trump.
The orange man takes pride in not (never?) reading reports but instead take his ques from low-lifers inside his bubble like you find on Fox News and Breitbart.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely is not quite the word I would use. Remember Trump does nothing but for himself. He doesn't give a rat's ass about research, he is interested in throwing a monkey wrench into the academic world. This is the yo-yo who wanted to cut research funding throughout the government and especially anything involving climate research because it contradicts money grubbing at all costs.
One result of this sort of rule is that it may encourage more privately funded research which will reflect the interests of the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You tell me how this is likely to go.
I was thinking that maybe it was possible that at least one good thing would come from the Trump administration.
But you mentioned the powerful publishers' rent-seeking. That is the very thing that Trump formerly did. Considering that, it seems extremely unlikely that he would do anything to damage someone else's powerful racket (outside of his turf).
There is either a bigger story behind this, or it is just a whisper on the wind.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take sugar-coated turds for $1000 Alex"
Alex : "trumps instant access to scientific research papers" /buzz in
Alex: "The sugar coating?"
Contestant: "what is trump's instant access to research."
Alex: "The turd?"
Contestant: "No more science"
Alex: "That is correct"
Re: (Score:2)
/judges whisper to Alex
Alex "I'm sorry you failed to phrase your final response in the form of a question"
No Pretzel Logic Required (Score:2)
https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]
a quote:
“Going below the current 12 month ‘embargo’ would make it very difficult for most American publishers to invest in publishing these articles,” argues a letter to President Donald Trump released today by the Association of American Publishers in Washington, D.C., and signed by more than 125 research and publishing groups"
No funding for publishers = no publishers = no articles = no science available to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
HOW EXPENSIVE IS IT TO HOST PDFS ONLINE? If Library Russia can afford to host BILLIONs of items online with no real income, we're supposed to feel bad for the McGraw-Hill of science publishers?
I mean, come on people. We've completely muddled the reality of the situation. These are not poor mom-and-pop stores. These are billion dollar corporations that benefit from exploiting the good will and hardwork of the pioneers of human knowledge.
Re: (Score:2)
HOW EXPENSIVE IS IT TO HOST PDFS ONLINE?
Yes because hosting is 100% the cost of being a journal. No effort or cost is spent in reviewing and editing the article for publication.
If Library Russia can afford to host BILLIONs of items online with no real income, we're supposed to feel bad for the McGraw-Hill of science publishers?
You mean the National Library of Russia that is financially backed by the Russian government? I think we have different definitions of "income" as private journals do get their funding from a government.
I mean, come on people. We've completely muddled the reality of the situation. These are not poor mom-and-pop stores. These are billion dollar corporations that benefit from exploiting the good will and hardwork of the pioneers of human knowledge.
Are they all journals from billion dollar corporations? There are four main categories for publishers that I know about when it comes to scientific journals:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: No Pretzel Logic Required (Score:2)
Yeah, it's too bad publishing is such a hurdle to overcome. You need a publication license, insurance against liability, a printing press, a few talented technicians on staff, your own fleet of delivery vehicles, local contacts in every major city, and a host of other things before you can even begin to do scientific publishing.
We should really come up with a cheap way to publish information for wide distribution.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF?
None of those paywalls where it is a magazine or is locked up behind a log in screen pays for research. They profit off it and fuck them.
numbnuts
I thought I spelled it out. If scientific research is done and no one knows about it then it doesn't exist, it never happened.
If there is no money to be made in publishing then it does not get published.
Meaning : The science has to find money to get published, instead of just being published.
It'll probably still happen (the publishing), but there may be less money for real science (research).
Re: (Score:2)
Im told there was no art before copyright either.
Re: No Pretzel Logic Required (Score:2)
Copyright law was created before the digital age.
Re: No Pretzel Logic Required (Score:5, Informative)
Okay Boomer
So, you don't have a real argument, you just don't like the one presented. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
After reading your reply, I thought that I might be mistaken about the phrase's meaning, and upon checking it seems yours is the inaccurate one.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes... [knowyourmeme.com]
a dismissive retort often used to disregard or mock Baby Boomers and those who are perceived as old-fashioned and being out-of-touch.
Re: (Score:2)
"Okay Boomer" is a currently popular update of the old standard "get off my lawn!"
No, it's really not. The connotations and context of use are quite different.
What they do have in common is that they're used when the speaker doesn't want to or (more often) can't make a real argument. They're just snark, and a waste of bits. If you don't have a real point to make and can't muster the intellectual integrity to admit it, just STFU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh boohoo (Score:2)
Last week more than 100 publishing organizations signed a letter calling on the Trump administration to scrap the proposal. The letter warned that an open access mandate would "jeopardize the intellectual property of American organizations engaged in the creation of high-quality peer-reviewed journals and research articles." Without the ability to charge the public for articles, scientific journals would have to pass those costs on to researchers or taxpayers, the letter warns.
That's hilarious. What they mean is that it would be a challenge to their cash cow business model whereby someone else does all the work, commonly with some form of public funding, and then they take a cut off the top. I don't like Trump, and I'd be surprised if the Trump administration did this, but if they do, good.
These organizations should be ashamed of themselves. They're supposed to serve for the betterment of all humanity through the advancement of their respective fields, not keep publicly funde
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here....
Scientific publishing model is broken (Score:5, Informative)
As a biological scientist of 20+ years, who does of course have to publish papers to keep my job (and that's fine), I can tell you the whole scientific publishing model is broken.
The old model relied on reputation and honesty, but on the whole it worked quite well. Even if there was a problem in the short-term it would work it's way out over time. Currently, even the best of the open journals are a bit patchy and there are thousands upon thousands of bad ones. We get tens of emails a week from open journals with zero reputation and usually from a different field, trying to cash in. Couple this with the pressure on time that we now have and the infinite growth in publications that is expected and the peer review is often poor. It's still good in the best (usually paid for) journals, but few others.
So we need a new system and I have no idea what it is. We should of course have as much scientific data and interpretation available to the public as possible, but the open journals right now are failing from the quality stand point. I don't believe it is going to improve, even the PLOS and BMC journals are often not as good as their impact factors suggest; a fair bit of crap gets in and they have been going for 15 years or so.
We aren't going to get the old system back, it's done for. The question is, how do we come up with a new system where we (scientists) can trust what we read in our fields?
Re: (Score:3)
If the private sector doesn't solve the problem, maybe there should be public sector journals.
Re: (Score:2)
How about linking the funding of the research to the problems it is trying to solve? It could be a variation of my ancient and crazy idea of the CSB (Charity Share Brokerage). In this variation, a website that publishes a scientific article would follow it with some links to projects that are related to the article, with the CSB acting as mediator to help make sure the projects are well prepared and feasible and that the results are reported back to the donors and the world. (QR codes can be included at the
Re: (Score:2)
Worth repeating:
The question is, how do we come up with a new system where we (scientists) can trust what we read in our fields?
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine getting rid of the "publish or perish" system would work wonders. The intense pressure for scientists to publish is what creates this market for these predatory journals that'll publish just about anything if you pay them. It would also get rid of thousands upon thousands of low value articles that really don't have anything meaningful to contribute, but are published anyway just for the sake of publishing something.
Science is just a junk religion these days (Score:2)
Burn it to the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
And just when I thought comments couldn't get even more stupid.
Well done!
Republicans must be stopped (Score:2)
Why are they trying to take our DMCA rights away?
Open letter (Score:2)
Wait, why did they make it an open letter? Why not put it behind a paywall?
Not to be funny... but what is a "grant"? (Score:2)
All of our military is publicly funded (by definition). They do a huge amount of scientific research (via contractors and possibly also in house). Would that research also get opened to the public? Are those not considered grants?
I'm sure that most three letter government agencies also fund various projects that have various levels of security placed on them. Would they get opened up too?
Clearly he should be crucified (Score:2)
After all, doing something that is good. Can't have that.
He'll fuck it up somehow (Score:2)
It seems every time Trump implements good policy, it's done in the most disastrous way possible.
Should we have left Syria? Yes. Did we do it in any kind of sane fashion? No. Should we be promoting Iran as player in the Middle East to balance Saudi Arabia? Yes. Should we have done it accidentally and without planning by leaving a power vacuum? No. Should we play hard ball with China? Yes. Should we...
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could give you an insurance mod point, but the trolls always have more mod points than I do. As in none, for reasons unknown. Actually my theory is that the trolls maintain armies of sock puppets to manage their mod points and thereby moderation has become one of the most broken parts of Slashdot.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Now watch liberals to tie themselves into pretz (Score:5, Informative)
First, what you missed is that McCarthy didn't "name and shame" people without evidence. He kept the names secret within the Senate Foreign Relations Committee members and simply asked for them to be investigated and/or to testify in private. They assigned anyone considered a potential risk numbers and referred to them using the numbers instead of names for public consumption. You're mixing up McCarthy's behavior with some of that of the HUAC. McCarthy was more careful not to trample on anyone's rights than current Senate committees tend to be.
Second, your wikipedia link's citation of Haynes leads to Haynes not only acknowledging nine confirmed spies, but he also calls almost all the rest of them security risks. The Soviets are known to have used the CPUSA to gather intelligence at that time. Membership in the CPUSA was a valid reason to consider someone a security risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing McCarthy with the HUAC, of which he wasn't a member and didn't meaningfully participate.
You're believing the hype instead of looking at the facts. McCarthy only ever publicly named a handful of people.
Re:Now watch liberals to tie themselves into pretz (Score:4, Funny)
Well, I'm willing to bet that this will be tied to some new definition of "science" that makes "creation science" ok but makes climate science illegal.
How about some free access to his tax returns? (Score:2)
You deserve the funny mod, but you should have changed the unfunny Subject: line. It's definitely a WTF topic. Come to think of it, maybe you deserve an "Insightful" mod more than the currently dominant "Funny".
Now regarding my new Subject: "Not so much" speaketh the #IMPOTUS.
Re:Now watch liberals to tie themselves into pretz (Score:5, Interesting)
explain why this is bad,
It's pretty bad, you look on the surface and it seems good, but details matter.
In this case, the details are not very subtle. Yes, it is open access, but once you read and realize that Elsevier is in charge of the enforcing the regulations, at that point you have to smell something is up. And of course, they have just enough freedom to get what they want (just like the banks under Bush/Clinton, btw). For example, the access is open, but they can charge a "usage" fee for the cost of downloading and running servers. And of course, the legislation sets no limit on how high they can raise the fees. The fee can be cancelled in case there is a subscription though.
I didn't make any of that up. Trump was smart enough to figure out this kind of trick, so in his favor, I don't think he was smart enough to understand what open access is either, and we can't really credit him.
Re: (Score:2)
Now watch liberals on this site to tie themselves into pretzels to explain why this is bad, after railing for a decade in favor of exactly this outcome. If Trump cured cancer tomorrow, people would still say orange man bad.
I'm a liberal. As long as there is additional funding to pay the journals, it's a good thing.