There is vivid debate nowadays as to whether scientific community should go on protecting its results through copyright publications or rather allow everybody to access scientific outcome through Open Source papers. What is your opinion?
See: The importance of protecting content
https://www.elsevier.com/editors-update/story/access/copyright-in-an-open-access-world
In my view, open source articles are better than protected ones because people can use them in order to revise and improvise their research. Being myself an abecedarian, I know how hard it is to get research articles on specific topics. If all papers were freely accessible, it would be better to assemble the best of research and work on it!
Regards,
@ Sahar: Ideal situation which I would also like but might not be practical in today's world.
In my opinion the question is not on our preferences. Its about scientific community who should go on protecting its results through copyright publications or rather allow everybody to access scientific outcome through Open Source papers
Anyone writing a paper on science/engineering is the scientific community!
If people give credit to the author of a paper or theory, there is no need to protect it by copyright. Then, publishers need another source of income, unless all publications are electronic and not in paper.
As per my opinion Scientific Research is open for all. Give Credit to the author in terms of royalty.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers