Idea: style publication of all publicly funded research. Means: when you derive something new from publicly funded research you MUST make it available to the public too so that others can build upon it.

@jwildeboer I suppose this would put scientists at a difficult position. There are a lot that goes into selecting where and how to publish research and that factors into keeping your job. This could thus push scientists towards citing "closed" articles only and open articles remaining uncited.

That's to say, this has the same problem with free software, which is restricting its users rather than expressly going after the system that's the source of corruption.

@jwildeboer The move towards proper open access is happening, we're developing things like registered reports and open peer review, and I doubt there's reason to divide that push with something like this. And we've seen activism like Sci-Hub and libgen, efforts like Retraction Watch, and unis and govts ending contracts with the likes of Elsevier over fees has achieved a lot. I doubt something anti-pragmatic like copyleft can add much, but I am sure it can subtract a lot.


@cadadr privatising and proprietarising publicly funded research through patents and other exclusive rights also has a net negative effect IMHO.

Sign in to participate in the conversation

Mastodon instance for people with Wildeboer as their last name