An excellent and timely article. There is another barrier to the free publication of scientific knowledge, and that is the expropriation of particular fields of research by scientists who consider themselves the unassailable experts. They are the people scientific journals ask to review submissions on 'their' topics, and if the article doesn't support them, or worse, puts their previous work in a poor light, they recommend it not be published.

There is another important consequence of the situation you describe. If you search the open access literature you will find that there is a whole other publishing world out there used by researchers, mainly from poorer countries, who cannot get access to the "mainstream" literature. Many of the papers are fine pieces of work, but the only literature they reference is that which they can get for free - neither authors nor their institutions can afford the subscriptions charged by the big publishing houses. So we end up with two parallel bodies of work, and frankly it is sometimes hard to see the difference in terms of qualilty. It is likely that the open access world will overtake the big publishers if the latter keep on going the way they are. Some big publishers charge outrageous fees to authors who want to put their papers on their web sites, a situation that does not arise with open access.

Yes, an excellent and timely article.

.

ybgirp?

The rest of your post is unfettered and unadulterated assertion.

Perhaps you should post evidence of your assertions before shooting from the hip.

Perhaps also you should read other articles of the author, for perspective of course.

Bonmot.
I write from experience, but am not stupid enough to provide 'evidence'. The laws of libel take little account of truth, merely the effect of it.
Thank you for your suggestion, I suggest you read "The Emperor of Scent" - by Chandler Burr. A wonderful tale of contemporary perfumery and scientific and intellectual brigandage, relevant to this post.

ybgirp

If I come accross the book in the library, I might - will look at a few reviews first.

Far too many people assert stuff without backing up any of their claims. I assumed you knew the danger in that method of argument, regardless of any fear of libel (unlikely against someone tagged ybgirp imo) - perhaps GrahamY can clarify?

Anyway, the strength of your opinion (in this case) falls down because as you know, some people tend to make stuff up.

If an economy only produces ideas, it has to find some way of making those ideas pay. We as a nation will not be able to dig it out and ship it off forever; we are witnessing the decline of manufacturing as our retailers push for the lowest priced goods in their stores, invariably meaning imports. By necessity we must find a way to ensure that all those great ideas we have are able to support the economy, and the research institutions, universities and schools that aid in producing them, when we no longer have anything else to offer.

If knowledge is the new economy, then by definition it will not be free or cheap.

Wise words, bren122. .The decline in the manufacturing sectors of all 'developed' countries is alarming. Like us and most European countries except Germany, France is losing jobs as 'free trade' sends manufacturers off shore to cheap labour. The possibility of being held to ransom in the future is increasing.
Bonmot, clearly you have had no experience of publishing innovative research in international journals. Scientists are no different from other humans, and often jealously guard what they see as their domain and 'expertise'. A blog name is no protection if specific circumstances are quoted. I'll take your ignorance as an excuse for your unkind insinuation that I'm making it up. Whether you believe me or not is irrelevant.

Well its not just private corporations. It pees me off that I
am expected to pay CSIRO 25$ to read papers that are 25 years and
older. Not only my taxes, but many of my research levies went to
help fund the work.

With the advent of the internet, hopefully the monopoly of the big
journal publishing companies will be broken. That should include
CSIRO.

Au contraire ybgirp,

Most people understand that assertions/opinions such as you have made should be backed up - at least if you want others to take them seriously.

If you can't agree with that, or are too precious for your assertions to be challenged, so be it.

Let's be clear on one thing, ybgirp. You don't know me or what experience in publishing I have had. Yet again, you make another wild assertion, without proof.

Have an opinion, it is your right. However, your ignorance of me is no excuse to infer things about me - regardless of your claimed writing from "experience".

Whether you believe that or not, is relevant.

As one dear sleuth has said; "I believe that once we isolate ourselves psychologically from the natural world, of which we are a part, we invite the sort of fracture and angst that we modern humans experience."

Perhaps we can agree on that.

Dear bonmot, Hercule Poirot, said some useful things, but I fail to see the relevance of reminding me that if we isolate ourselves psychologically from the natural world, of which we are a part, we invite the sort of fracture and angst that modern humans experience.
In fact, I haven't isolated myself from nature--far from it, and fortunately have not suffered from fracture and 'angst'. I agree that evidence should usually be offered in support of assertions, and to that end I suggested you read a book. I'm pleased you think there is no back-stabbing in science, although the sad fate of Dr Pangloss should be a warning for those who imagine all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Let's leave it there.