RA 2
Madison WalkerDr. GagichENG 102H 9 September 2020
A Right or a Privilege?
Should academic research be free? Well, first, it is important to fully understand what academic research is, how it is funded, and what scientists, universities, and scholars are really paying for. Academic research is a wide umbrella term given to professional research with the intent to inform. Because a large majority of the academic research is funded by taxpayers and the publishing companies often require a fee to read and publish the work, the readers are paying for the same piece of work two times while the publisher benefits from the system. As publishing houses are steadily bringing in money, many learning institutions and libraries are unable to keep up with the financial burden these “subscriptions” are imposing upon them. Academic research is meant to inform, so who are publishing companies to put a price on knowledge and dictate who can and cannot read these pieces? Free academic research broadens the horizons for future studies to happen, puts less strain on institution’s budgets, and becomes more inclusive among socioeconomic classes.
When one is limited in the research he or she can do, it, undoubtedly, delays the process. New discoveries, studies, and experiments are being delayed at the hand of publishing companies and their greed. As PLOS, an open access publishing company and advocate, writes, “When researchers can read and build on the findings of others without restriction, science advances faster” (“Why Open Access?”). Limiting one's ability to gain access to material is limiting what one can do with that material. Freedom to read materials and improve upon that material is the building block for science. Researcher Michael Eisen has experienced this delay first hand. As he is quoted in “Should All Research Papers Be Free?” Eisen states, “The current system slows science by slowing communication of work, slows it by limiting the number of people who can access information and quashes the ability to do the kind of data analysis” (Murphy). In order to make new discoveries, the reader needs access to previous knowledge in the field, and the sooner he or she has that, the sooner he or she can create their knowledge.
The true victim to this monopoly of research is those paying for it. Libraries across the nation are counting pennies to ensure that they can pay for the subscription that most students do not even know they have access to. Today, American universities pay more than ten billion dollars per year to access this information, but the price is not consistent or fair (Murphy). According to research found by Leti Kleyn and Denise Rosemary Nicholson at “The Conversation,” the “one price fits all” is no longer the case. Now, an individual would not pay as much as an official library, but not all libraries pay the same amount. On top of this, the majority of publishing houses require a nondisclosure agreement as part of their subscription (Kleyn). This is a way for the publishing houses to create a monopoly among their consumers. There is not a way to know how much other libraries are paying, so it is difficult to ensure you are getting a fair and appropriate price. Transparency is not something that comes naturally from publishers, so it is the consumers job to hold them accountable.
Statistics among lower classes show they fall victim to less healthcare, higher risk of mental illness, discrimination at job, and now less access to academic research (“Why Open Access?” ). Not only does this limit their ability to contribute to the professional academic world, but it also limits their knowledge of the world’s discoveries around them. As George Monbiot wrote in his piece, “Scientific Research is a rip off. We Fund the Research- it should be free,” when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he was faced with many decisions regarding his way of treatment. Monbiot needed information to make the best and most informed decision regarding his life. This information regularly costs thousands of dollars for people to obtain (Monbiot). A member of a lower class would most like struggle to find money for the treatment, let alone thousands to spend on articles. Lack of knowledge, in turn, leads to a less informed decision in a life or death situation. This accurately describes the lack of inclusiveness these publishing companies are a part of. By putting a price tag on knowledge, they are secluding and creating a divide amongst the people that can and cannot afford it.
Knowledge is power. The manipulation and withholding of this knowledge is also power. Publishing companies find themselves charging for materials they should have no right to charge for. Academic research should be open to the public because the sole purpose of creating a piece of writing surrounding a researcher's results is to inform people. Open access sources benefit both the researcher and the reader. Academic research should not be a privilege that only a limited number of people can access, but it, instead, should be a right. Knowledge should not be withheld because greed and desire to benefit from the vulnerability of others. Whether it is academic, personal, informal, or scientific, research should be free.
Works Cited
Leti Kleyn Research Fellow, and Denise Rosemary Nicholson Scholarly Communications Librarian. “The Cost of Accessing Academic Research Is Way Too High. This Must Change.” The Conversation, 18 May 2020, theconversation.com/the-cost-of-accessing-academic-research-is-way-too-high-this-must-change-105583.
Murphy, Kate. “Should All Research Papers Be Free?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/should-all-research-papers-be-free.html.
“Scientific Publishing Is a Rip-off. We Fund the Research – It Should Be Free | George Monbiot.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 Sept. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/13/scientific-publishing-rip-off-taxpayers-fund-research.
“Why Open Access?” PLOS, 5 July 2020, plos.org/open-science/why-open-access/.
A Right or a Privilege?
Should academic research be free? Well, first, it is important to fully understand what academic research is, how it is funded, and what scientists, universities, and scholars are really paying for. Academic research is a wide umbrella term given to professional research with the intent to inform. Because a large majority of the academic research is funded by taxpayers and the publishing companies often require a fee to read and publish the work, the readers are paying for the same piece of work two times while the publisher benefits from the system. As publishing houses are steadily bringing in money, many learning institutions and libraries are unable to keep up with the financial burden these “subscriptions” are imposing upon them. Academic research is meant to inform, so who are publishing companies to put a price on knowledge and dictate who can and cannot read these pieces? Free academic research broadens the horizons for future studies to happen, puts less strain on institution’s budgets, and becomes more inclusive among socioeconomic classes.
When one is limited in the research he or she can do, it, undoubtedly, delays the process. New discoveries, studies, and experiments are being delayed at the hand of publishing companies and their greed. As PLOS, an open access publishing company and advocate, writes, “When researchers can read and build on the findings of others without restriction, science advances faster” (“Why Open Access?”). Limiting one's ability to gain access to material is limiting what one can do with that material. Freedom to read materials and improve upon that material is the building block for science. Researcher Michael Eisen has experienced this delay first hand. As he is quoted in “Should All Research Papers Be Free?” Eisen states, “The current system slows science by slowing communication of work, slows it by limiting the number of people who can access information and quashes the ability to do the kind of data analysis” (Murphy). In order to make new discoveries, the reader needs access to previous knowledge in the field, and the sooner he or she has that, the sooner he or she can create their knowledge.
The true victim to this monopoly of research is those paying for it. Libraries across the nation are counting pennies to ensure that they can pay for the subscription that most students do not even know they have access to. Today, American universities pay more than ten billion dollars per year to access this information, but the price is not consistent or fair (Murphy). According to research found by Leti Kleyn and Denise Rosemary Nicholson at “The Conversation,” the “one price fits all” is no longer the case. Now, an individual would not pay as much as an official library, but not all libraries pay the same amount. On top of this, the majority of publishing houses require a nondisclosure agreement as part of their subscription (Kleyn). This is a way for the publishing houses to create a monopoly among their consumers. There is not a way to know how much other libraries are paying, so it is difficult to ensure you are getting a fair and appropriate price. Transparency is not something that comes naturally from publishers, so it is the consumers job to hold them accountable.
Statistics among lower classes show they fall victim to less healthcare, higher risk of mental illness, discrimination at job, and now less access to academic research (“Why Open Access?” ). Not only does this limit their ability to contribute to the professional academic world, but it also limits their knowledge of the world’s discoveries around them. As George Monbiot wrote in his piece, “Scientific Research is a rip off. We Fund the Research- it should be free,” when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, he was faced with many decisions regarding his way of treatment. Monbiot needed information to make the best and most informed decision regarding his life. This information regularly costs thousands of dollars for people to obtain (Monbiot). A member of a lower class would most like struggle to find money for the treatment, let alone thousands to spend on articles. Lack of knowledge, in turn, leads to a less informed decision in a life or death situation. This accurately describes the lack of inclusiveness these publishing companies are a part of. By putting a price tag on knowledge, they are secluding and creating a divide amongst the people that can and cannot afford it.
Knowledge is power. The manipulation and withholding of this knowledge is also power. Publishing companies find themselves charging for materials they should have no right to charge for. Academic research should be open to the public because the sole purpose of creating a piece of writing surrounding a researcher's results is to inform people. Open access sources benefit both the researcher and the reader. Academic research should not be a privilege that only a limited number of people can access, but it, instead, should be a right. Knowledge should not be withheld because greed and desire to benefit from the vulnerability of others. Whether it is academic, personal, informal, or scientific, research should be free.
Works Cited
Leti Kleyn Research Fellow, and Denise Rosemary Nicholson Scholarly Communications Librarian. “The Cost of Accessing Academic Research Is Way Too High. This Must Change.” The Conversation, 18 May 2020, theconversation.com/the-cost-of-accessing-academic-research-is-way-too-high-this-must-change-105583.
Murphy, Kate. “Should All Research Papers Be Free?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/opinion/sunday/should-all-research-papers-be-free.html.
“Scientific Publishing Is a Rip-off. We Fund the Research – It Should Be Free | George Monbiot.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 13 Sept. 2018, www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/13/scientific-publishing-rip-off-taxpayers-fund-research.
“Why Open Access?” PLOS, 5 July 2020, plos.org/open-science/why-open-access/.