Comment by VagabundoP
1 year ago
Checked and it was published through Nature:
Jiang-Xie, LF., Drieu, A., Bhasiin, K. et al. Neuronal dynamics direct cerebrospinal fluid perfusion and brain clearance. Nature 627, 157–164 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07108-6
Every Uni should have access through your library system.
I think the point was that every member of the public should have access to publicly funded research at least through the university's website, rather than at least everyone currently in universities should have access.
I agree but I also know (as a university employee) that the reason they don’t do this is because then they would have to pay for and manage the hosting of hundreds of thousands of articles. From the university’s perspective, managing and hosting articles is exactly what publishers do, so universities cede that work to publishers. What is needed is a public database of all publicly-funded research.
How hard or expensive is it to embed a PDF link in the Univ news article. It maybe less harder and expensive than the stock image that they have used.
Stanford maintains an extensive catalog of research papers: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/in00000064276
At first I was like, “oh, that’s a reasonable perspective,” and then I thought about it more and it kinda isn’t?
When I buy a keyboard, the manufacturer doesn’t run a shipping company, so they use $x from the purchase price to subcontract shipping. (They tell me it’s separate at billing, but they don’t make me ring up DSL myself either.)
When I hire an electrician, they buy materials from Home Depot, so they use $x from the purchase price for materials. (They sometimes break down the bill into materials and labor, but they don’t make me drive to Home Depot myself and buy every part.)
When the public hires academics to do research, they have administrative overhead and have to hire a publisher, so they use $x from the grant for administrative overhead and…
Abdicate responsibility for the $y needed for publishing and pretend the public didn’t intend for part of the grant money to go to that??
2 replies →
Hosting is a long-solved problem. High-quality repositories have provided free, universally accessible document hosting to the academic world for decades.
The arXiv is a nonprofit organization run by Cornell that hosts preprints, and I wouldn't be surprised if it holds more stuff than all the for-profit publishers combined at this point. The barriers to uploading on the arXiv are very low - all you need is to be at a recognized academic institution or endorsed by someone who works for one.
Resources like arXiv have made official publishing largely superfluous for spreading knowledge in the parts of academia that understand and care about the value of spreading knowledge for free. Analogous archives exist for (at least) biology, medicine, psychology, and economics.
https://info.arxiv.org/about/index.html
some sort of scientific hub, one might say
Sounds like a good cost for the government to subsidize.
I agree publicly funded research should not be siloed in anyway and should be in the public domain.
AaronSwartz+1*
Swartz. Schwartz is an actor.
1 reply →
Yes, it was published through Nature.
But what stops Univ' site to have original research paper available for download? Nature magazine is just a distribution channel (they did not sponsor the research so should not have exclusive rights on it).
Left college long time ago; and do not have access to any library system.
Copyright Transfer Agreement. The moment you send the paper to Nature, you can only publish the draft you sent in. Unless you pay for publish, editorial costs are paid by selling access to that paper.
If you want to publish in an Open Access manner, you need to pay the costs. Or if your country wants to license it for Open Access, your country pays the costs.
If I understand correctly, for most publishers you are allowed to host a copy on your personal web as well as the university library catalog?
2 replies →
The final draft that was sent is good enough, maybe all that one needs.
1 reply →
If you email the authors they might be happy to send you a copy - scientists tend to be in favour of the free exchange of information, there's no restriction on them sharing their paper if they choose to, and they don't get royalties from journal subscriptions so they have no vested interest in paywalling their research
Not all of them. I sent a couple of such mails, to only get back the freely available summary PDFs back. Even with the same checksum with the ones on the web.
3 replies →