# data[].attributes.body
Free journal articles. A lost and dying art except for the black market or in Ivy League higher education institutions. This is absolutely unjust for scholars and researchers. It’s also unfathomable that we need to pay for an article we wrote ourselves. What’s wrong with this picture? The TedMed video brings up many important factors. Change takes time and has to start small. Slowly, and hopefully we’ll get open access to all important scholarly information eventually. But it will take time. Money still controls the publishing world. Publishers will have to give up some of their 40% profit margins (CBC News 2015). Good luck convincing them to do so, all in the name of Science.

Sci-Hub allows for a black market sharing of journals. I don’t blame the creator of Sci-Hub, Alexandra Elbakyan, for developing it. It seems ridiculous that researchers have to buy back their work after publishing it. In Waddel’s (2016) article, he cites “We faculty do the research, write the papers, referee papers by other researchers, serve on editorial boards, all of it for free … and then we buy back the results of our labour at outrageous prices,” (para.14) said the former director of Harvard University’s library. As a result, we see well-organized boycotts and open-access movements that will continue to flourish in higher education academia.

The great digital divide continues among higher education institutions (some Ivy League schools accessing more information than others who can’t afford it). This distinction will always exist in society unfortunately. The rich get richer…they say. But I think when it comes to sharing Science information and medical innovations (especially in biomedicine), there needs to be an exception made.

“The system is broken,” Waddel states, “It devalues us, authors, editors, and readers alike. It parasites on our labor, it thwarts our service to the public, it denies us access” (para.16). I think that if the government gets involved, as it is doing with researchers who have access to public grants, by making them publish within a year, is a good thing. But we still have a long way to go. Elizabeth Marincola talks about many important issues in this TedMed video, as she compares the topic to a crash between Science, money and free flow of information. And with 24,000 Science journals that exist in the world, there is a lot of information to share. She talks about a new path of publishing scientific information called eLife. Hopefully, her model of accumulating and sharing knowledge will work. People are always going to find a way to access information they need for free. Why not allow them to do so legally?

~ Mireille ~

References

CBC News. (2015, June 15). Academic publishers reap huge profits as libraries go broke.
Olcott, D. (2012). Beyond open access: leveraging OER for university teaching and learning. Distance Learning 9(3), 11-19.
TedMed. (7 May, 2013). What happens when science, money, and freedom of information collide [Video File].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ztwFtF-lgA
Waddel, K. (2016, February 9). The research pirates of the dark web. The Atlantic.

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for sharing Laura. It is unsettling that this can directly affect someone's quality of life and the quality of their education.

- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Eric. I do agree that people should get paid for the work they do and own the rights to their work. According to Canada's Copyright act Section 13(3), creators have the first rights to their work. Yet, publishers keep their articles in their possession. The possibility of having researcher be awarded for their work and free information seems infallible but I believe that publishers would fight tooth and nail if it did. That move would affect so many people in the process, but change is imperative and necessary.

- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Lauren. Like you mentioned there is a bind between the two, the publishers who would like to continue  earning money and open access publishing and those who advocate for it. Money is an incredibly huge factor and what this argument is is whether information trumps that and according to Elsevier and other publishers it seems to hold true unfortunately.

- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
I agree with your sentiments Lauren. As long as there are equity issues society is going to find a way around it to get what they need. SciHub and many other sites are in agreement. Authors and editors are devalued and do not get paid or treated fairly. I'd much rather the creators of information get paid as they are the ones furthering research that can be beneficial to society at large.
- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
Great points Reena. When publishers charge hefty fees they are creating a divide of the haves and have nots. Furthering this agenda, they can create groups of people who essentially know more than others, an imbalance of information. I think with technology it would only become more transparent on how unethical these publishers are.

- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
Thank you for sharing, like you said there are many factors and unfortunately it seems as if publishers have the upper hand. It does seem unfair that there are gatekeepers on information especially when someone's health could be at stake
- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
When looking into Waddel's (2016) article I was shocked to see that it is a very current issue. The Ted ED video for this task was very clear on the movement towards trying to enhance the knowledge of others by sharing knowledge. Owndership of published articles is based upon Canada's Copyright act Section 13(3) which clearly outlines that the creator has first rights over any paper produced. But are we creating a false illusion to believe this Ted-Ed as UOIT does not share its access to journal articles with Alumni even, let alone an outside to the University! Hush (2005) is noted within Longo (n.d) that the consumerism model is very clear that " proponents of markets in education claim that they are preferable because they efficiently allocate goods and services, are more equitable and responsive to the needs of learners, and provide individuals opportunities to spontaneously engage in partnerships with others". How is it that in a program that focus with technology do we not use this OER resource referred to within (Olcott, 2012) at least at supplementary to the existing data base used? I am not saying that Elbakyan within Waddel (2016) is correct but with this prior knowledge I would have to say that it is wrong towards equity of publishing papers but at the same time is it right for a journal article to cost $30 or more (Waddel, 2016). Waddel (2016) states that even top universities such as Harvard University "announced it was having rouble paying large publishers' annual fees". If an established University such as this can not access the material they need or are limited the expose for the students it directly limiting the learning that is experience. As a result the research will not be used or addressed unless a professor has the article already for another reason. How awful is it that money can interfere so hard with the awareness one individual can have over a topic. This issue addressed within Waddel's (2016) article goes past just the equity of published papers!

Laura .S

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the big take away for me from this video is the question posed by Marincola about a tiered information system. We would not think that a branch of mathematics would be inaccessible to mathematicians working at cash strapped institutions or not working at an institution. Seen in this light, the idea of making ground breaking research only accessible to people who can afford it seems abhorrent. Marincola refers to public universities as being not allowed access but the problem goes much further in that information is another thing that developing nations do not have access to thereby continuing the current global situation of benefiting the established western nations at the expense of the developing. Having said all this, I do feel that a researcher deserves to make money for their work as well and don't think I can support a system where people are not able to make money from their work either. While a tenured professor may be expected to publish and not receive financial compensation, the pittance paid to lecturers or assistant professors is not enough to deny them financial compensation for what they publish. Manicola seems to advocate a system where researchers are still getting rewarded for their work while the information is not kept away from the world. This sounds like a win win system..

# data[].attributes.body
I think the most important comment made in the TedMed video came when Ms. Marincola stated, "science is about accumulating knowledge with each researcher building on what came before, to learn something better or do something different" (TedMED, 2013). As educators, we know that access to resources is critical for the success of our students, whether it is a textbook, novel, or online article. Without this access, our students are at a distinct disadvantage to peers who can get these resources. Ms. Marincola also mentioned this struggle as it related to public vs. ivy league universities. Harvard and Yale have incredible amounts of funding, so their access to online resources is plentiful. However, schools like Pepperdine College or Lafayette College, which many of us will never have heard of, do not have nearly the same access to online materials. With average enrolment in these smaller universities ranging from 2500-3500, they simply cannot afford the same luxuries that the Ivy leagues can.

While the idea behind open access journals is noble, it is not something that comes without legal constraints. Like the Waddell (2016) article shows, there has been legal action taken and there are copyright laws being broken. So, by outwardly stating that regardless of the courts decisions, SciHub will continue on the dark web, Elbakyan basically states she is above the law. It is criminal, whether noble or not. However, these open access journals will not disappear anytime in the near future. These people are advocating for a movement towards the importance of learning and knowledge and away from monetary gain. The fact that journals charge as much as they do limits the ability of many potential academics to access and utilize potentially life-changing information. We need the access, but the multi-billion dollar industry also wants to continue to earn their keeps, so this is a struggle that I believe will continue for a long time to come.

- Lauren

# data[].attributes.body
I feel that Elbakyan’s stance, to continue to make Sci-Hub accessible despite legal action, is a form of protest which emphasizes the need for equity of published papers (Waddel, 2016). As noted in TedMed (2013), “the public has the right to know”ideology, science, and money have been in conflict for a while now. Technology has complicated matters (TedMed, 2013). The public has the right to know information and this means having access to journal articles for free. This supports the democratic values that our society upholds. When publishing companies charge hefty fees for articles, they are creating a divide between those who have the funds to access information and those who do not. This is not democratic. An ethical framework can be applied to this instance. By attaching a price to access of information, people are segregated. This creates an unfairness when it comes to knowledge. Creating open access levels to playing field, so to speak. Everyone can get the same information and not have to pay a fee. It appears then, that open access is the right thing to do. Therefore, it can be further argued that Elbakyan’s statement is a subversive act (Portelli & Konecny, 2013). By making information easily accessible to all, this serves the greater good of society. Elbakyan’s bold statement, to keep Sci-Hub operational, sends a clear message that we need to allow journal articles to be available to everyone in order to be equitable. The future of equity in the publishing arena depends on people coming together to take a stand and demand that the right thing be done (open access for all).

- Reena.

References

Portelli, J.P. & Konecny, C.P. (2013). Neoliberalism, subversion, and democracy in education. Encounters on Education, 14, 87-97

TedMed. (7 May, 2013). What happens when science, money, and freedom of information collide [Video File].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ztwFtF-lgA

Waddel, K. (2016, February 9). The research pirates of the dark web. The Atlantic.

# data[].attributes.body
In the TedMed (2013) video, Marincola refers to the trifecta of science, money, and the free flow of information as the public’s right to know.  These three facets are in a constant state of flux, having been at odds with one another for decades.  There are two factions: those who advocate for and support open access publishing (OAP) believing that by harnessing the power of today’s technology publishers can be profitable while supporting the broadest possible dissemination of information (TedMed, 2013). Then there are those who advocate for the more traditional form of subscription based publishing, purporting the notion that enterprising methods of charging for work physically published by publishing houses is a perfectly reasonable option in the free market (TedMed, 2013).
Schools pay astronomical amounts for yearly subscription licences to these publishers for articles.  It is this fact which brings into contention the notion of equity.  These subscription based licences opens a gap between the haves and the have nots – learners who attend institutions that can afford these charges vs. learners who attend institutions who cannot afford the subscription licences.  I think that what Elbakyan is getting at in her letter is that open access to resources is a good thing – especially for students who simply cannot afford to pay $30 a piece for research articles, as well as for the researchers who will receive citation credit in future articles, which is in essence why she created Sci-Hub (Waddel, 2016).  The sentiment that we live in a broken system wherein authors, editors, and readers are devalued purely so that publishers can be financially compensated sustains the culture of open access movement.  As such, I don’t think that we’ll be seeing systems such as Sci-Hub disappearing from the dark net anytime soon as they really do level the playing field and ensure equal access to all learners and researchers to published papers on a global scale.

References
TedMed. (7 May, 2013). What happens when science, money, and freedom of information collide [Video File].  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ztwFtF-lgA

Waddel, K. (2016, February 9). The research pirates of the dark web. The Atlantic.

# data[].attributes.body
"The public's right to know" is a statement that really stuck with me from he video and really got me thinking about the difference between publishing companies and journals that require reader's to pay in order to have access to the information and sites such as Sci-Hub, who despite the legal implications continue to publish work without consent.
There is no denying that the free flow of information is essential to the development of Science and as mentioned in the introductory video, research and articles are often provide building blocks for new research and creative ideas.
Although I understand that the author may not want their research read or circulating on the world wide web on such sites as Sci-Hub, I feel that by allowing private journals to publish them implies that they do not mind if their work is accessed so long as someone is willing to pay.
When considering access to information and what the public should and should not have free access to, I think it is important to consider the content of the research or article. Does it make a difference if the research or article is scientific in nature ? Does it make a difference if the research is groundbreaking or repetitive ?

I think that there are many factors that need to be considered given the complex nature of research and publishing. However, I do think that sites like Sci-Hub will continue to exist regardless of the legal implications and I also think that publishing companies are not authors but rather capitalist trying to get the biggest bang for their buck.

-Ashley A

# data[].attributes.body
Good point in mentioning that most authors are unaware of their work being accessible. I think that is a  part of the discussion as to whether or not they are complicit in breaking copyright laws. I do agree that since there will always be ways for people to access copyrighted materials, I think part of the issue is making open access resources credible in the academic community so that it can be sustainable and deemed reputable
- Damali

# data[].attributes.body
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Justin. I agree that there are many opportunities for open access resources and I think it leads to a more educated society. Like you mentioned the authors' compensation,  there are many perspectives to this discussion.

Damali

# data[].attributes.body
The public’s right to access free flow of information is an ongoing controversy involving money and science. According to the TED ED talk, there is a controversy between those that support open access and those that are in favour of charging to access publications online. The TED ED talk discusses the benefits of free online publications that focus on sharing information and advancement of knowledge to support better health for people everywhere. Not only science is affected, but just about every subject discipline. The TED ED talk examined that role that money plays and that smaller and less-wealthy institutions (non Ivy-League Schools for example) should not be excluded to accessing online publications.

Sci-Hub is a platform that uses university networks to access subscription-only academic papers in which the academic institution is typically unaware that their papers are open for easy access (Waddel, 2016). Although this site has been shut down over time, it continues to pop up again and again in the dark corners of the internet. I feel that on one hand, journals should be open access to ensure that every student at every institution is able to access them to enhance their knowledge and share the benefits of current research today. However, the Waddel reading (2016) also discusses how free access to information “devalues us, authors, editors, and readers alike” (Waddel, 2016). While I can understand that some authors may not be comfortable with sharing their work, and many are not cognizant that their work is being shared on sites such as Sci-Hub, it would be in everyone’s best interest and benefit if publication works were freely shared. As the TED ED video suggests, the open access and sharing of publications in science will enhance the free-flow, faster advancement which is good for doctors, patients, and all of us.

It will be impossible to avoid sites such as Sci-Hub popping up on the internet, so why not consider free access to publications to encourage sharing? What does need to happen is that authors have and require the right to know that their work is being shared!

Waddel, K. (2016). The research pirates of the dark web. The Atlantic.

Jason H.

# data[].attributes.body
The free flow of information is a highly controversial topic. As the TED ED video discussed, the advancement of knowledge can be transferred through open access publishing. If we don’t want to be ‘segregated’ by money, I strongly believe that open access publishing would encourage collaboration and sharing of information. If we want everyone to be able to read papers, we cannot charge and expect others to pay to read it. Many of the smaller, non Ivy-League schools that cannot afford access to more expensive journals/papers should not be limited to access.There are clearly many advantages to sharing free papers including fostering knowledge, resources, and more opportunities. With the advancement of technology allowing for global sharing of open-access papers, anyone can have access for free!

The Waddel (2016) reading looked at Sci-Hub, a free pirated site that has been shut down, but allowed users to access papers for free. The question is should users have to pay to access these academic papers? While it is understandable that the author might need/demand some form of compensation, the problem with Sci-Hub is that usually the institution/author has not given consent for the paper to have been shared on Sci-Hub (Waddel, 2016). Free access to academic papers however is said to promote and foster ‘independence’ (Waddel, 2016). People are always going to find ways to access online material for free. Why not make it applicable and safe for all by permitting the sharing of academic resources for free as long as permission has been granted!

Waddel, K. (2016). The research pirates of the dark web. The Atlantic.

Justin.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What happens when science, money, and freedom of information collide?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A free flow of information goes to the heart of science, says Elizabeth Marincola, but an arcane system has commoditized data instead. Can web-based, open-access publishing level advance knowledge -- and turn a profit?