On ReadCube, and Nature‘s give-away | Sauropod Vertebra Picture of the Week

"It’s been a week since Nature announced what they are now calling “read-only sharing by subscribers” — a much more accurate title than the one they originally used on that piece, “Nature makes all articles free to view” [old link, which now redirects]. I didn’t want to leap straight in with a comment at the time, because this is a complex issue and I felt it better to give my thoughts time to percolate. Meanwhile, other commentators have weighed in, and have mostly been pretty negative. John Wilbanks described it as 'canonization of a system that says a small number of companies not only do control the world’s knowledge, but should control all the world’s knowledge'; Ross Mounce characterised it as 'beggar access'; Peter Murray-Rust says 'Nature’s fauxpen access leaves me very sad and very angry'. Perhaps surprisingly, Michael Eisen is more temperate, asking whether Nature’s policy is 'a magnanimous gesture or a cynical ploy', and concluding only 'At the end of the day, this is a pretty cynical move'. I am a bit more optimistic (although as you will see, still not really happy). First of all, let’s say clearly that this is a step in a good direction. Nature‘s papers are now at least somewhat easier for regular people to get hold of, and that is to be applauded. Even if Mike Eisen’s cynical reading is correct, it’s still a net good. But — and it’s a big but — I have a huge problem with the use of ReadCube, or any equivalent, to provide a crippled form of access ..."