if you're an academic who doesnt make their papers widely accessible for free you can not complain about your fellow citizens "not following the science"
@julieofthespirits @exiliaex right, and I don’t think the answer is just “all scientists publishing research should bend the knee to journals and pay the fees”
@julieofthespirits @2d as someone whose only experience with academia was working IT/software-dev at a uni for 5 years - it's nice to have some others with more experience helping me adjust my understanding
@julieofthespirits @exiliaex @2d
Emailing a copy of your paper to anyone who asks is a time-honored tradition too.
Making things accessible has little to do with publication.
Use a preprint server and/or web page to post preprints, including the final submitted draft (but not anything reformatted by a publisher).
Publishing does not make research available, and making research available is not in itself considered publishing, these days, at least in the current sense of "academic publishing".
At a minimum all publicly funded research should be available to the public without charge.
@exiliaex I have at times felt tempted to denounce all paywalls as non-science.
I can't verify claims made about studies locked in the dark, so from my point of view, it's gossip, not stats.
If this seems harsh, I have an unassailable epistemological argument, with perfect evidence, showing I'm right, but it'll cost you...
@exiliaex if one accepts public funding for one’s research, it should be made freely available to the public. and not after some stand-down period. right away. i’m blessed to be in the precise field that invented https://arxiv.org/ where all my papers have been available for $0 since the day they were born as preprints
@exiliaex one of the people I follow on here mentioned something about wanting to make her most recent paper accessible and finding out that it cost significantly more to publish her paper that way.. so as usual, this is the fault of the journals, not the individuals