Read on Twitter
my thought of the week: Author-pays Open Access publication model is worse for science and society than the traditional subscription model with for-profit publishers. Why? 
. 1/6
. 1/6
Institutional libraries have far more clout and bargaining power with publishers than individual authors and are more likely to keep publisher profits in check than the author pays model. Library consortiums have strong negotiating power as well. APC will drive profits higher 2/6
Author-pays model excludes a lot of excellent scholarship from being published, and differentially hurts folks that are early-career, at smaller institution, and/or from under-represented background. 3/6
Author-pays model has contributed to proliferation of predatory garbage journals that confuse the public and harm legit scholarship. Pay to publish used to be a reliable indicator that the outlet was junk. 4/6
Open access is over-rated. The number of people who might have to pay to get access to an article is miniscule compared to the number of researchers who can’t publish their work in author-pay journals. Vast majority of readers are at institutions with libraries. 5/6
Open access is the least important of Open Science goals imho*. The rapid move to author pays for open access was worse than doing nothing. 6/6 fin.
*in my halfbaked opinion
*in my halfbaked opinion
p.s. I think there are better models than either of the above options. But none in widespread use yet. 7/6
