Legalise Sci-hub

Abolish copyright on science ⚛️

Then every journal will be an open access journal

@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

@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.

@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

@mjog @bgcarlisle Sorry correction the Royal Society of chemistry is more than 25 years *older* than my country.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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?

@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.

@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.