Stop me if you've heard this 
rant from me before
Legalise Sci-hub 
Abolish copyright on science 
⚛️
Then every journal will be an open access journal
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@bgcarlisle If we don't establish a structure forcing people to archive their papers in some way, professors are just going to throw them up on their personal webpages and then as they retire or die will lose access to that research
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek @bgcarlisle Because the magical capitalism fairy is going to keep the papers available when the company folds/is bought out/"pivots"/etc, right?
Many institutions already have what you describe, and require papers be uploaded there. If yours doesn't then it's time you got on their case, or you know, just upload your shit to arXiv.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog @bgcarlisle My proposed solution would be federal agencies with mandates and funding to archive them rather than relying on universities. Plus the primary publishers in chemistry are nonprofit, though the ACS is only technically a nonprofit at this point. But the RSC is almost as old as my country so I'm pretty confident it's going to stay around
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog @bgcarlisle Sorry correction the Royal Society of chemistry is more than 25 years *older* than my country.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog @bgcarlisle So yes I agree for-profit corporations are a terrible idea, I think this should be done through journals run by government organizations (cf Can J Chem) and professional institutions (RSC). Both of those have proven staying power and could run with only charging enough to actually cover expenses and stockpile enough for future upgrades and to shield against sudden downturns in funding.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog @bgcarlisle My problem with the idea of making everything open access is I don't see the point in a) spending a bunch of money given people who won't understand the research access to it - I still don't understand every paper to come out in the journals I follow and I'm close to finishing my PhD and b) why should the government be paying to give industry the fruits of academic labour?
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek @bgcarlisle Ah yes, the "we're the keepers of the citadel and no one else can/should get access to our secrets" argument. Literally the whole point of science is so that humanity has a better understanding of how the world works. Not just scientists, but all of humanity.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek @bgcarlisle If you're not doing science to the benefit of humanity, then please quit now. If you're worried that some other company is going to monetize your research before you do, then go work for that company.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog @bgcarlisle I'm working on sensors to detect gases that kill people and we don't have plans to monetize them? I'm not sure where you got that impression from?
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog Reading papers on organic sythesis doesn't help humanity. Giving them access to the lifesaving drug that you make with that paper does. I'm a chemist and I couldn't do any of my research outside of a professionally equipped lab (and it would be dangerous to do so), so it would be near-pointless for me to have access to those papers outside of an academic institution.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek What you actually mean is, "I can't think of a reason why anyone else would want to read these papers, except for companies to steal my ideas" and concluding apart from that, that no other such reason exists. Come on, really?
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog No, I think other academic and non-profit researchers could benefit from them. However, I think that if for-profit companies want to use them, they should have to give the taxpayer some money back. (Recall, I also want governments to manage journals). That moves the burden of paying for the journal from the taxpayer onto industry.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek Yes, the citadel argument, you said it before. It's still bogus.
So how do you get your funding? From a Government? How do Governments get their funding — from taxpayers. Companies pay tax, so companies are funding your research.
This is an argument for taxing companies properly, not avoiding OA.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog I mean, if you really think the public would benefit from my papers how about a non-profit licences on all scientific research? Like, a CC-NC? That way J. Q. Public gets access free, as do academics, but Phizor has to pay for upkeep?
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog I've lived through a VERY anti-science government in Canada that did everything it could to shut science down. That is why I don't want funds for maintaining records coming out of the standard tax pool. I want it to have its own pot of money that doesn't require the government to remember it in its budget every year.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek Who funds the endowments? Where to those people get their money from?
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog Government grant to start things off? That or nationalize the journals and use their massive profits as seed money? I'm fine with it being arms-length government, I just want to make it as hard as possible for a future Harper government to defund them.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog This is the government I saw destroy a hundred years of climate data in the name of saving money. If the journals have their own pool of money it is harder to justify shutting them down to save money, you know? The CBC is still in operation due to not wholly relying on government money.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek The government can enact laws to do whatever not likes, irrespective of whether the data is public or private, so that's still an argument to go and campaign for progressive parties.
Look this has been fun, and I'm sorry your past government was so shit, but stop using that as an excuse to harm others. Bye!
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog As will your approach when access to the papers isn't funded and we lose 50 years of data down the line.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@Canageek Australia is reducing research funding year on year as well. That's an argument to go out and campaign for progressive political parties though.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog Politics is short lived as well. This data has to survive hundreds of years. I mean, if we could pull it off, the best way would be to found a religious order around it, or give it to the Dutch Water Board or something.
Stop me if you've heard this :oa: rant from me before
@mjog If we really want to go full open access, then some sort of an endowment system might work? They work for universities, and quite a few of those have been around for a long time.