First of all: Researchers won't avoid public funds, because there's never enough money.
Second of all: Most researchers HATE academic publishers and being forced to sign over their copyright to a paywall in exchange for nothing. But institutional evaluation criteria force you to do so.
EU banning non-open publications will force publishers to allow open access OR force universities to revise their criteria to accommodate the inability to publish publicly funded work in non-open journals.
I think all of my colleagues think this is a great thing. As do I. Elsevier can go blow a goat with their copyright assignment BS.
I'm into the history of logic at the moment. As in not the filtered oh-so-neat version that is presented at third-level but the nitty-gritty twists and turns from Ancient Greece (go team Aristotle!), Indian, Arabic, Scholastic, Medieval, Pre-modern, the rise of symbolic/algebraic logic, Kant/Hegel/Trendelenburg, on to Frege and then the multiplication of logics (modal/tense/deontic, …) in the 20th century ending with type theory.
Recently Elsevier contracted top logicians to produce a Handbook in the History of Logic. It runs to 11 volumes, each volume north of $300. So folks, if you want to get acquainted with the complete history of what is supposed to be a formalisation of rational thought it can be yours for $3,300 or thereabouts. There is no reason this should not be in the public domain, it's too fundamental and central to history of ideas. I could buy two cheap second-hand cars for that price. (Personally I have used SciHub to have a look and I don't mind saying so.)
Now I would like to think that top logicians are not complicit in this scam, but I fear they are. I have a burning desire to crowd-source a website that provides the same information. >95% of the papers/texts are out of copyright. These academics already have very lucrative salaries and grants. I don't think we can point the finger exclusively at the Elseviers of this world, they have had a little bit of help along the way. Here in HN we have a bit of an open-access echo chamber. Some academics are very happy with the status quo, and who wouldn't be with those prices? I think it's _insane_.
I'll post names and links of the details if people are interested.
> Recently Elsevier contracted top logicians to produce a Handbook in the History of Logic. It runs to 11 volumes, each volume north of $300. So folks, if you want to get acquainted with the complete history of what is supposed to be a formalisation of rational thought it can be yours for $3,300 or thereabouts.
Unless you're leaving out important details, that strikes me as a completely reasonable and uncontroversial thing for Elsevier to do. If they're going privately fund the creation of an original specialist work, I think they can charge whatever they want for it. That's worlds away from how they they've subverted the primary scientific publishing process for private profit.
>Ahahahahaha.
>First of all: Researchers won't avoid public funds, because there's never enough money.
What if though, they actually get their money from private funding, like a ton of research projects do. You cast this of as a thing even weird to even consider, but this just implies you don't seem to have found yourself in academia ever (or if so, without any actual colleagues).
I certainly agree that no researcher would prefer a non-open journal vs an open journal, but if the former means a stand-still of their career and the latter means an advancement, then the latter is far more valuable for them.
>What if though, they actually get their money from private funding, like a ton of research projects do.
You'd be surprised how few those are. Even in the biggest private/public companies there are tons of research and tech subsidies, tax-cut deals and other schemes involved which end up in tons of government (our) cash. Those pay for lots of things, including part of their R&D.
First of all: Researchers won't avoid public funds, because there's never enough money.
Second of all: Most researchers HATE academic publishers and being forced to sign over their copyright to a paywall in exchange for nothing. But institutional evaluation criteria force you to do so.
EU banning non-open publications will force publishers to allow open access OR force universities to revise their criteria to accommodate the inability to publish publicly funded work in non-open journals.
I think all of my colleagues think this is a great thing. As do I. Elsevier can go blow a goat with their copyright assignment BS.