- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
While I agree that free information is a public good, and that the people should have access to the research they pay for, there is something else to consider here.
The strength of science publishing is the peer-review process. This anonymous and sometimes brutal process (in combination with solid editing) is responsible for the quality of the articles published in journals. It is also not free. If you remove that part of the process, you remove one of the major reasons why science, as a process, is so powerful. And you damage the quality of the science you do publish.
Science is not a democracy, where everyone is entitled to have their say. Your work has to earn the right to be heard by being good enough. Any "free" information process which doesn't have a peer-review and editing process will do far more damage to science that it will benefit science.
