zlacker

>>sixtyf+(OP)
What are pragmatic things that we can do to push for open access for academic papers?

>>jf+ih
You start with the scientists make it prestigious to publish in an open source journal, make it sexy, make it lucrative.

>>pixel_+mj
Well APS opened a new open access journal PRX which is more prestigious even than PRL, so I don't think that's the problem. Also Nature, which is like, the most prestigious, is also open access...

>>joeber+Ck
Nature is open access? Like what recently? And I assume they ask for a metric ton in cash to do that?

>>ramraj+yl
It surprised me as well. But apparently, it's up to the authors (or their institution) to choose.

> From January 2021, authors submitting primary research articles* to Nature will be able to choose to publish their work using either the traditional publishing route OR Open Access.

> *Non-primary research (e.g. Reviews, Comments, News & Views) is not eligible for Open Access and is only published using the traditional publishing route.

https://www.nature.com/nature/our-publishing-models

> The APC to publish Open Access in Nature is €9,500

https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/publishing-options

>>krab+ym
In many countries you could sponsor PhD student for a year on €9,500.

It's just crime in white gloves. Academics are defrauding public money by having anything to do with Nature.

Running Arxiv per paper costs somewhere in the order of 10 dollars.