OPINION: Research should be available to all
Forking over money to companies that don’t benefit the authors undermines research
While WSU does offer access to many research papers, the issue is how much they have to pay for them.
April 7, 2020
Research is meant to be shared. For multi-billion-dollar corporations to lock scientific, sociological and historical knowledge behind a paywall, and demand as much as $50 to $100 for the rights to read a research paper, written by a hard working graduate student, is not only unfair, it’s immoral. More than half of all research papers are owned and published by the “Big Five” companies of academic publishing. Think about that: 5 companies own more than 50 percent of all graduate research conducted worldwide.
WSU’s graduate students and professors are hard at work right now researching veterinary science, engineering, business, political science and a whole host of other topics. Some of them will even publish papers on their findings. Some of that research will probably go on to change the world, but not if we allow this current, bastardized system of corporate governance to keep us from viewing their research.
It’s also worth pointing out that the writers of these papers — graduate students and college researchers — see little to no profits from getting their research published. The fees go to the publishers exclusively.
“Personally, I don’t think that someone should have to pay for it [research paper] unless at least some of that money is going to the grad student that wrote it,” said Jeff Smart, a sophomore communication and technology major.
Some people, however, are already working on ways to reverse the trend of monopolized research papers. Alexandra Elbakyan, a Russian college student, has developed pirating software, intended to allow would-be readers the chance to bypass the fees to read the paper. She’s been taken to court over this, by the same “Big Five” companies that monopolize research worldwide.
I’ve spoken out in this paper before about copyright law, corporate monopolization and Big Tech infringing on our rights more and more. However, this essentially crystallizes the debate, and is indicative of how far multi-national corporations will go to ensure that they have as much stake in any field as possible. In fact, one of the original founders of the scientific publishing scam, Robert Maxwell, called his scheme a “perpetual financing machine.” If I were to write a parody of corporate governance, even I would think “all scientific research is owned by five companies, and the guy behind it all flat out acknowledges that it’s a con” would be too far out, even in a satire. But here we are.
“Placing a price on knowledge especially when no money goes to the researcher is strictly against the interest of any scientific progress,” said Erin Zosia Gordon, a freshman psychology major. “I see no reason other than the greed of the companies to place paywalls.”
In a world where Amazon owns our shopping habits, Google owns our search history and Facebook owns our social interactions, allowing large-scale corporate entities to lay claim to that one thing that makes us uniquely human — science and research — is a step too far.
It’s not only a moral issue, it’s a pragmatic one. When we stick scientific research behind a $50 paywall, we restrict the people that can read it to those who can afford it. In the Internet, a system where information is supposed to be free and open, keeping scientifically interested people away is profoundly antithetical to the point of egalitarian research, and it’s completely against the point of research itself, which is to inform and educate, not serve as a cash cow for companies.
“Paywalls surrounding research hinders the ability for smaller universities, students and other scientists to have access to information critical to their research and education,” Gordon said.
Finally, considering that a significant amount of research is done at state-funded universities, such as WSU, companies selling the research back to the public is like buying the same product twice. If tax dollars finance the research, the general public should not have to pay to read it. It’s an elaborate scam, but one that’s been making a significant amount of money for these “Big Five.”
Scientific research should not be some flood of money for a group of investors. It should be conducted by smart, dedicated researchers, intent on making the world a better, more knowledgeable place. When we lock research behind paywalls, not only do we detract from the original intent of the study, but we hide knowledge from each other, all in the name of money. Make scientific research free and open, and watch how we, as a society, grow and learn from each other.
Andrew Pitts • Apr 14, 2020 at 4:32 am
Can you please explain why you think WSU are having to pay between $50 and $100 for articles from the “Big Five” as you call them. I would estimate that the usage at WSU would mean they pay less than $0.50cents for each article or less.
Even students who are not a member of any University will not be asked to pay anything like $50-$100, where is your evidence?
The “big five” donate their content, via the Research4Life platform to the poorest 120 countries in the world, so they will not be paying these vast sums you talk about.
Finally, they are not just selling the content back, look at the huge amount of added value all the publishers add to the Publication Cycle. Look at what you can access now that you could not in 1996 in the print days, all this technology and added value means you have millions and millions of articles at your finger tips, cross searchable, using links made available by Cross Ref and DOIs, all made available and paid for by the “Big Five”! All archive articles made available in the same search, all digitised back to issue 1, volume 1 by the Big Five”. Look at all the fantastic benefits that members get of the Society Publishers? Many society publishers publish with the “Big Five”, because it is cheaper due to economies of scale.
A little more perspective here is needed.
Also, Sci-Hub is a front for Russian Military intelligence, so be careful thinking they are “reversing the trend of monopolised publishing papers”! This was, and is not, their intention, don’t be fooled.
Albert Henderson • Apr 13, 2020 at 1:55 pm
There is no “scam” to scientific publishing. It was founded for his own profit by Henry Oldenburg in 1665. After he died, the Royal Society took it over and continues to reap the financial and intellectual benefits today. After World War II, the autodidact Robert Maxwell realized the growth of scientific knowledge had outstripped the ability of existing publishers and created Pergamon Press.
Sputnik and the “space race” motivated politicians to finance the growth of academic R&D – libraries included. When the US landed on the Moon, these people lost interest. Scientists were able to press for continued growth of R&D, but library budgets were cannibalized and “open access” was introduced to replace university research collections.
The scam, if any, is the proposition that any author is entitled to all that is published with no one responsible for organization, review, dissemination, and conservation of knowledge. The scam is the fantasy that tenure may be granted on the basis of self-publication on the Internet.