I think your point regarding the cost of academic journals and conferences being exorbitant and…
Aidan Angus
1

You’re making a pretty big assumption about what I’m trying to imply, here. I think content creators are entitled to the value their content creates — period. The market value of journal articles right now is greatly inflated right now because content distribution is in the hands of a few massive publication outlets and because all universities “need” journal access as a commodity.

I think the distribution of scientific work should be opened up. Ideally, scientific publishing would be open-source and free, and scientists would be paid for their research through a mix of university & private funding as well as government grants. It shouldn’t be such an inaccessible racket. But so long as it is, the people who provide the content to which that racket is based ought to yield the massive benefits. In no other field would that be a controversial statement. Artists and writers are cautioned not to to work “for exposure”. Lawyers and therapists can’t see everyone pro bono. Scientists shouldn’t have to work for free either.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.