The main contributors of scientific knowledge, researchers, generally aim to disseminate their findings far and wide. And yet, publishing companies have largely kept these findings behind a paywall. With digital publication technology markedly reducing cost, this enduring wall seems disproportionate and unjustified; moreover, it has sparked a topical exchange concerning how to modernize academic publishing. This discussion, however, seems to focus on how to compensate major publishers for providing open access through a "pay to publish" model, in turn transferring financial burdens from libraries to authors and their funders. Large publishing companies, including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley, PLoS, and Frontiers, continue to earn exorbitant revenues each year, hundreds of millions of dollars of which now come from processing charges for open-access articles. A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists: widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles. All we need is awareness of this alternative and the will to employ it
翻译:科学知识的主要贡献者,研究人员,一般都致力于广泛和广泛地传播他们的研究成果。然而,出版公司基本上将这些研究结果保存在付费墙后面。随着数字出版技术显著降低成本,这一持久墙似乎不相称和不合理;此外,它引发了关于如何使学术出版现代化的时事交流。然而,这一讨论似乎侧重于如何补偿主要出版商通过“付费出版”模式提供公开访问的机会,反过来又将图书馆的财政负担转移给作者及其资助者。大型出版公司,包括Elsevier、Springer自然、Wiley、PLOS和Frontiers,继续每年赚取高额收入,其中数亿美元现在来自公开查阅文章的处理费用。存在一种不太昂贵和同样容易获得的替代方式:通过“付费出版”模式提供公开访问机会,而我们所需要的只是了解这一替代方式,以及使用这种方式的意愿。