Last week, I linked to a blog entry that took scientists to task for having their research published in journals that can't be accessed without a paid subscription. In a compelling counterpoint on the same blog today, U.K. neuroscientist Chris Chambers, PhD, rejects the argument that "scientists who follow accepted publishing practices" are, as the original piece had alleged, immoral. "At best," Chambers writes, "this position paints a simplistic view of the incentive structures in academia. At worst it demonises the most vulnerable victims of the current system – junior researchers – and threatens to prejudice whole communities of scientists against open access publishing."
Previously: Researchers shouldn’t hide their work behind a paywall, argues scientist
