Everyone should take part of the researchers' knowledge - soon | Research & Progress | Popular Science magazine
[From Google's English] " ...The change was made possible by technological development, just like in the music industry. The driving force is also partly the same - more people will be able to access the material easier, faster and cheaper. Therefore, the simple principle husbandry obvious: open access is good. Something that is also enshrined in a brand new report from the Swedish Research Council, recently handed over to the Government: Draft national guidelines for open access to scientific information. A large part of the scientific activity of publicly funded through grants to universities and colleges, and grants from government research bodies and public or private foundations. Thus it is we who pay jointly, and then it is reasonable that everyone has free access. But there are important differences between music and science publications, which complicates the transition. One difference is that scientific publishing should be reviewed by colleagues before publication, so-called peer review . It is a costly process, both in time and resources, which are very important for the scientific quality. It is now not uncommon for the costs of publishing are taken by the writer instead of the reading. Subscription is free and the researcher must pay. It is also common to first publish in a traditional Subscribed journal and then after some time publish the same article openly. In some cases it also happens that you publish immediately in several places, but then pay an additional fee for it. In principle, all in favor of a more open model. It also shows the Research Council's report. The report can be summarized by saying that we should seek immediate open access, but it can take time to get there. First, in ten years, all publicly funded research be immediately openly available. It may seem slow. Why must we wait for ten years? ..."