Headlines By Email
Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
- Nice analysis 1 month 2 weeks ago
- Justifying the practice... 2 months 1 day ago
- Details 2 months 3 weeks ago
- Congrats on 20 years. 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy Brithday 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy birthday, LISNews! 3 months 2 weeks ago
- chapter 1-8 claims 10 months 1 week ago
- Not a novella? 1 year 1 week ago
- women of a certain age (sounds like a criticism right there...) 1 year 8 months ago
- Reading as a punishment 1 year 10 months ago
Recent blog posts
- Appreciating the ‘powerful good’ of the public library
- New Domain, New Blog
- A.I. as virtual research mediators
- Fed Life Working Without Pay
- Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union
- Cites & Insights December 2018 (18:9) available
- Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) available
- Cites & Insights 18:6 (September 2018) available
- Apparently Alex Jones isn't totally silenced
- Cites & Insights 18.5 (August 2018) available
That's the point. They should
That's the point. They should do for providing content. Everything else is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what the scientists do or don't want to do. The work is often not the copyright of the scientist but the funding body that funds them. Wellcome and UK research Councils for example now require all work to be Open Access whatever the scientist wants or cares about.
Tenure? Yeah right. Try telling a junior scientist or an RA. Or indeed anyone working in science. You keep publishing because you have to for your job. You are only as good as your last assessment. But by giving your work away for free aren't you devaluing it's worth?