Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ic-publishing-rip-off-taxpayers-fund-research

Opinion - Peer review and scientific publishing
Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free

George Monbiot, 13th September 2018

 

and from June 2017 a history of this busine$$

https://www.theguardian.com/science...usiness-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her."

 

and from that article last year:

"It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill. Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup. A 2004 parliamentary science and technology committee report on the industry drily observed that “in a traditional market suppliers are paid for the goods they provide”. A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”."