Discussion Friday

It's the return of Discussion Friday! (In which hardly anybody discusses, but I am allowed to rant and pose questions.)

This subject is particularly close to me at the moment, but I shall try to avoid spitting more nails. Yesterday was messy.

In scientific publishing, there are pretty much two camps: those who believe scientific information should be free and openly accessible to all regardless of who created and published it, and those who believe that publishers and editors add value to scientific information and should be reimbursed for that value--or at least be able to support themselves.

Guess which camp I fall into?

Let's just say that the "your publications are my right" people are messing with me, and driving me batty. I DO add value. Those publications I release, with the clear, concise prose, consistent grammar and punctuation, and kick-ass layout? Some of those started out as sloppy, muddled reports with grainy images embedded in Word. So why do you think, again, that it's okay to make those available to everyone in the world for free, when our meager sales margin supports my department? Hmmmm?

Okay, I'll stop there before I go into details. I did intend to do a reasoned presentation of the free/not free issue, but obviously I can't just now. Instead I'll put up a poll. I know there are many out there, particularly librarians and researchers, who believe that scientific publishers and editors are money-grubbers, and largely unnecessary. They've told me to my face. What do you think?