On Academic Journals

Why aren't all Academic Journal articles available fully Free On-Line?

In the U.S.A. the words of their Constitution, "Of the People, By The People, For the People", are applied in many areas.
One of which is Publicly Funded Research and Education:

If public funds were used to create, discover, invent something, then it is put into the Public Domain. Locking it up with patents or other Intellectual Property protections is seen as double dipping. [Not universally accepted, especially in pharmaceuticals and genetics.]

I haven't looked for any formal policies nor widely prescribed "mores".
This was the rationale in 1977 behind the massively successful ancestor of Linux: BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution).

A line-of-thought that resulted directly in Free and Open Source Software. (FOSS)
Even that bastion of Proprietary Software, Microsoft has used or modified FOSS.
NeXT, then Apple, based its revamped system, OS/X, on Open Software: Mach and BSD.

FOSS isn't just mainstream, it underpins The Internet and increasingly the platforms we use to access it.

The reason the ARPAnet, now The Internet, blossomed  since1969  going on to sweep all competitors before it, Proprietary and "Standards based" (e.g. OSI/ITU), is simple:

The Reference Documents and Implementations were available for Free.
Anyone could, and did, build a service/tool, improve existing code or propose, build, and distribute entirely new things - like DNS, HTTP/HTML, ...

This is exactly how the work of Tim Berners Lee and c/o, "The Web", got out there and spread like wildfire. There was no barrier to entry: download the (free!) code for a server or browser and go on-line...

This simple approach arose for many reasons, but it led to the fastest, most flexible (and in the end, the most robust and scalable) development of network and services.

The value of "The Web" and its revolutionary impact on the world (and most aspects of daily life) is incalculable - and due solely to the Nil-Cost and Full Source availability of the original source code.

All the subsequent problems and incompatibilities stem from companies attempting, deliberately or not,  to create a commercial advantage by a) creating their own "extensions" and b) not releasing the source code for those extensions.

There is a role for Product Differentiation and a necessity for commercial entities to make a profit.
The lesson of the decade long "Unix Wars" (ironically made irrelevant by Microsoft taking the market) is:

Product Differentiation doesn't mean Difference by Incompatibility.

Any Telco or White Goods manufacturer can tell you "interface Standards" are necessary and strict compliance mandatory to achieve maximum Consumer Utility and Producer Benefit.

Whatever you build, it must plug-in and "Just Work" for the end-user... Any other approach is madness and Commercial suicide...

FOSS hasn't lessened in importance:

Most of the dominant internet services, languages, tools and platforms are either FOSS projects or derived from them.

There's even a branch of Psychology and Game Theory that shows/proves in the majority of situations sharing, a.k.a. co-operation, provides not only the best outcomes for everyone, but is massively better.

It's also the reason we have countries: "In Unity there is Strength."

So why can't I get Free access to articles in Academic Journals in this Age of the Internet?

• Universities, Researchers and Educational Institutions all heavily rely on the Internet.
  They intimately know and understand the technology and its benefits.
• Since the early-1990's every Article has been produced electronically.
• Since the mid-1990's, every (first major, then minor) Education and Research institution had extensive Internet and e-Mail infrastructure and presence.
• Indeed, the current review, editorial and publication process are exclusively electronic/Internet.
• The whole of the Content and Editorial Process is provided gratis by the Subject Matter Experts: the Academics/Researchers in the field.
• Overwhelmingly, Academic Journal articles are written by Publicly Funded academics:
  So having already paid for the work and the writing/publishing of the article, why do I have to pay to an extortionate amount to get a copy?

I can't understand the "Value Add" of Journal Publishers.

• There is no selling/marketing to be done.
• Printing, Distribution and subscription collection are well known and highly-competitive fields.
• Website, webservers and Internet links are already maintained by all Education and Research Institutions.
• Search and Cataloguing are well known and well solved problems. It doesn't cost the Earth and many nil-cost options exist. "Google Scholar" is sufficient proof.
• The text and diagrams of whole of the last century's Academic Journals will now fit on commodity servers costing under $10,000.

There aren't any reasons why  the Academics in Education and Research Institutions won't have thought about Fully Free publishing, there have even been attempts to establish on-line Journals.

The only reasons I can see to maintain the status quo are:

• The commercial interests of the Journal Publishers.
• Academics and Researchers feel no pain, they are happy with things the way they are.
• The "Public Paywall" doesn't affect those within Education and Research Institutions: the same Public Funds that paid for the whole Journal Content, pays for their access.

But if you're not in a major institution, say just a High School or "Community College", or worse a Second or Third World backwater, you're Out of Luck...

There are convincing public and social equity reasons to remove the Public Paywall, but the people who might, Politicians, Public Servants and Academics, are not interested. Things work for them, the very privileged and unconscious minority, just as they are...

Meanwhile, the rest of us here and in the Developing World, are held out to dry.

Academic Freedom, Creativity and Intellectual Performance

Is there anything more important for Universities and Colleges than improving their performance in the 3 basic disciplines: Research, Teaching and Administration?

Don't they already spend huge slabs of time, effort and money on exactly this? Or more exactly, reporting this?

Publicly funded institutions are required to account for their grants.
Private Universities have to make a convincing case to students and benefactors - usually by way of "League Tables".

Academic Freedom is basic to Research, as is "The Scientific Method" to most fields of study. (Post modernists aside).

So who applies The Scientific Method to the work of Academics, Researchers or Scientists?
Who actively seeks to answer:

What works in Academic Research & Creativity?

What institutions actively seek to identify "Their Best" in each of the 3 basic disciplines and the techniques used? None that I've come across.

In the way that the Australian Institute of Sports (AIS) seeks to do with Sports. Improve the selection, training, health and nutrition of athletes, the technique & methods of coaches and study the science of sports, training, coaching and athlete management & performance: physiological, psychological, mental and emotional.
Would you be surprised to know that Rest and Recreation are critical success factors?
Over training leads to poorer results and even illness (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome).

Every University I know has some Centre for bringing the latest theories of education & instruction to their teaching academics and for training those new to teaching... But not the area I'm discussing.

In the courses I've come across in the last 5 years, there is huge variability in instructor knowledge and use of the tools provided.  Providing training and support/help where needed to reduce the range is a simple, obvious step & relatively cheap - but not done. Universities I know of don't actively assess teaching delivery of all staff and work to improve performance and student outcomes.

Where do Academics find their Computing skills? Taught the basics, then left to their own devices is what I've observed. Shouldn't they be keen to learn new tools, techniques and processes to improve their performance in all fields? My direct experience is very few spend any effort in examining their use & performance with tools and technology. I've seen no institution do more than provide basic tools, and let individual schools & faculties create their own 'templates'.

My guess is they don't want to be dictated to. But how would you know unless it was formally researched?

Computing is a "Cognitive Amplifier" and a perfect fit for the work of Academics, the prototypical Knowledge Workers. (Should the field be called "Knowledge Engineering"?)

Proficiency in the "academic tools of trade" should be mandatory - like mechanics and plumbers being proficient with their tools. Especially new gadgets & techniques that radically increase productivity.

There is a systemic bias at work. What's the cause or reason?
I suspect Universities, organisationally and as individuals, confuse "Academic Freedom" with absolute freedom.

There is one academic that dared to ask & address what I think is the basic reflexive Academic Question... That his work is under valued & seldom applied is pretty much what I'd expect.

He started by asking the question:

What do Nobel Prize winners do differently?

So why isn't that a core discipline and activity of every University & College?
Applying their own Methodology to their own work... What could be so hard about that?

---

Books by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in Amazon

2009 Good Mentoring: Fostering Excellent Practice in Higher Education
    by Jeanne Nakamura, David J. Shernoff, Charles H. Hooker and M.C.
2008 Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience.
2007 Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature: Psychological,
Social, and Spiritual Perspectives
    by Ruth Richards and M.C.
2006 A Life Worth Living: Contributions to Positive Psychology
    by M.C. and Isabella Selega Csikszentmihalyi
2006 Experience Sampling Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life
    by Joel M. Hektner, Jennifer A. Schmidt, and M.C.
2004 Good Business: Leadership, Flow, and the Making of Meaning
2003 Creativity and Development (Counterpoints)
    by R. Keith Sawyer, Vera John-Steiner, Seana Moran, and Robert J. Sternberg
2002 Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness [1991 repub]
2002 Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet
    by Howard Gardner, M.C. and William Damon
2001 Becoming Adult: How Teenagers Prepare For The World Of Work
    by M.C. and Barbara Schneider
2000 Beyond Boredom and Anxiety: Experiencing Flow in Work and Play
1999 Flow in Sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances
    by Susan Jackson and M.C.
1998 Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life
1997 Living Well: The Psychology of Everyday Life
1996 Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention
1994 FLOW - Living at the Peak of Your Abilities
1994 Changing the World: A Framework for the Study of Creativity
    by David Henry Feldman, M.C. and Howard Gardner
1993 The Evolving Self
1992 Flow: The Psychology of Happiness
1992 Optimal Experience: Psychological Studies of Flow in Consciousness
     by M.C. and Isabella Selega Csikszentmihalyi
1991 The Art of Seeing: An Interpretation of the Aesthetic Encounter
    by M.C. and Rick E. Robinson
1990 Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience
1990 Television and the Quality of Life:
    How Viewing Shapes Everyday Experience
     by Robert William Kubey and M.C.
1986 Being Adolescent: Conflict And Growth In The Teenage Years
    by M.C. and Reed Larso
1981 The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self
    by M.C. and Eugene Halton
1979 The value of leisure:
    Towards a systematic analysis of leisure activities
    (Research paper/Research Group on Leisure and
     Cultural Development, University of Waterloo)
1976 The Creative Vision: Longitudinal Study of Problem Finding in Art
    by Jacob W. Getzels and M.C.
1974 FLOW: Studies of enjoyment