The panel featured 1 post doc student, 2 librarians and 2 tenured professors. The debate centered on the pros and cons of open access academia. Open access refers to databases of studies and reviews that are available to the general public for free. Currently, to access many high quality studies, one must be subscribed to that particular database, often costing thousands of dollars/year.
Pro open access argued that knowledge should be made free. Meanwhile, Cons argued scholars should get compensated for their work and its not as obvious as it seems – many prestigious journals are not open access.
Do researchers have moral responsibility to provide public with knowledge?
– It shouldn’t cost the public 50,000 to simply gain access
– But if my work is public, then more chance of people to abuse it
What is the aim of your work?
– If you simply want publishing, then you want the public to see it.
– The moral obligation then would be to make it maximally available.
– Shouldn’t be a moral obligation but a societal obligation. Since the federal gov is funding, it’s their decision to make it public.
Gross tonnage and meaningful tonnage when pushing material
– Are open access actually paying attention to what is being produced
