Quote From peljam:
Eskobastion,
What you seem to be describing is the gateway theory of criminal behaviour. Usually applied to drug use. And usually pretty easily refuted. If it's difficult to find a link between smaller illegal behaviour and larger when addictive substances are involved then it's probably going to be impossible here. No matter how much I want to read a paper I very rarely experience a rush doing so!
You'd be better off looking at things like white collar crime and work place fraud, and the links to opportunity etc. Already heavily researched but much more productive. The basic general findings are that many people will steal from a place of work if given the chance and a certain confluence of events. They don't start small and get bigger but instead are just opportunistic. So you don't have to worry about us moving on from illicit paper use, to whole journals, raiding the British Library and then hold all the first editions to ransom if we don't get the crown jewels and a helicopter.
Ah, the old good gateway theory.
That was not in my mind when I wrote the earlier post. I did not assume that plagiarisation or falsification of data are more severe types of behaviour than copyright infringement. My hypothesis was that they are at the same level and was thinking of changing behaviour from one category to another horizontally.
Quote From peljam:
You're making an awfully big assumption there. I know people, myself included, who would avoid publishing in a large popular journal, paid or otherwise, (such as Nature), in favour of a journal we feel best fits the work we've done. One with the correct audience, a journal we feel might have higher submission standards (though not kudos) that other options.
Also, I and many others couldn't care less about the impact factor. There's no point twisting your research out of shape so it fits the profile of a higher impact journal if that journal lacks the relevance and target audience you're aiming for. I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't have a problem with using an open access journal, so long as the standards of review and submission are adequate.
Like I said, you're making a huge, unsubstantiated assumption there. That we're all somehow hypocrites. I wouldn't kick start your research with it
;-)
Well, I am aware of the fact that a lot of researchers use widely small and open access journals but the other side of the story is, however, that often people are advised and encouraged (by their tutors, supervisors, professors etc.) to publish in reputable, popular, paid journals. It might be so that this happens more often in countries -- U.S.? -- where the competition in academic settings is more fierce than in UK or Europe..
There is a comparable situation in the world of ICT. Linux, Scribus, OpenOffice.org, JabRef, LyX, Zotero, Mendeley (these are examples of software which I use in my studies) and thousands of other operating systems and software can be used freely but usually people select Windows, MS Office, EndNote etc. And sometimes pirated and cracked version of these. Why?
Why is not the free alternative considered to be the best (even it was)?
I was making big assumptions but in my opinion they are as right or wrong assumptions than yours. You were referring to your
own experiences and people who you know. I was making a justifiable argument that publishing academic material is a big business
and people tend to publish in and read paid and popular journals more than open access journals.
The quality of open access journals do not increase if people do not use them..
Quote From peljam:
Better that than sit and do nothing. Laws aren't automatically just and fair because they are law.
Vigilantism is surely a quick way to advance one's interests but it has had often unwanted effects.