I am so tired of people insisting on changing the entire paradigm of science publishing based on lies and ignorance. I'll say it again: Open Access is a fine idea, and I support the existence of OA publications and I have published in them more than once. And I will again if I have the money to do so. But demanding OA to the destruction of subscription-based journals is a bad idea for a bunch of reasons. Briefly, because that's not what this post is about:
The claim that it's "for the public" is mostly bullshit. If that were true, we wouldn't write our papers with impenetrable jargon accessible only to sub-sub-field practitioners. The public largely doesn't give a shit about your paper.
It further biases scientific output towards rich, famous labs, because they're the ones with the money to publish OA.
It places financial burdens on PIs who are already badly strapped. Publishing 2-3 papers a year can cost upwards of $10,000 in fees alone. In my case, that's the difference between hiring two summer interns or not. Bye bye, paid educational opportunities.
etc.
Anyway. Like I said, that's not what this post is really about. What it is about is all the ways that you can get free, legal access to those supposedly paywalled papers without resorting to criminal behavior like #icanhazpdf. Learning this stuff is difficult. You have to be willing to:
Talk to a librarian, or
Read the documents you sign when you publish in a subscription journal.
I am equally sick of people declaring the system is impenetrable and unfair when they haven't even made the most basic investigations like reading the things they put their signature on. Seriously? Are you this lazy about the regulations and agreements you are bound by? Are you this bad with IACUC and IRB regs? We seriously need to audit for compliance every goddamn academic research enterprise in the country.
Without further ado:
1. Use google scholar. Here's a screenshot of a quick search I did for "ecology bat fire". Lots of paywalled articles show up. And every single one on the first page has a free, legal link to the pdf right next to it. Usually from the institutional repository of the author.
2. Review papers. When I review, for many different journals (Sage publishing is particularly good) I get an email a few weeks later that, yes, looks spammy and is easily dismissable, but which offers me anywhere from 30 days to 6 months of free access to all journals they publish.
3. Learn about institutional repositories. And put your own papers in them. And look for papers in them. Also, google scholar searches these for you.
4. You are allowed, by nearly every publishing company, to put the "accepted for publication" version of the document on your website. Not the final, typeset version. The Word/LaTeX/PDF you submitted to the journal that was accepted without revision. Authors should place this version on their lab webpages, and make it known that it's available.
5. Use PubMed. PubMed has links to free, legal PDFs of millions of subscription-based papers.
6. Ask authors. Many authors think it's illegal for them to share their own papers. And in some cases, it might be to share the final typeset version. But not usually. This goes back to read what you sign. Most of the time you are told you can share it, or can share it 50-150 times, or are given an author's link that you can distribute which is good for a year, or 500 downloads, or something.
7. Go to, or email, a library. Inter-library loan can be done over the internet, is generally free, and is legal. This nonsense about "I live 300 miles from my library" is irrelevant. Use a phone or a computer.
Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law. The system is clearly not perfect, and needs renovation. But subscription-based journals have their place, and it's an important one. They allow small, under- or un-funded science to compete on the broad market of ideas. And claiming that solely because an article is paywalled that you "can't" access it reveals that you have not made even the most rudimentary effort to educate yourself, and invalidates your opinion on scientific publishing. It means you're arguing from ignorance.
In having this conversation on twitter, someone actually had the audacity to claim, "We shouldn't have to try." That's the problem. We're so immodestly entitled as scientists that we think we should have instant, free access to whatever we want, while expending no effort of our own. That's a disgustingly gluttonous perspective. If you can't be bothered to exert the tiniest bit of effort to adhere to the law and the agreements you signed, I have serious doubts about the viability and ethicality of the science you produce.