736 When free isn't cheap

No matter what your profession, you probably are inundated by information--most likely from some type of aggregator or news service which was supposed to make that sort of thing easier by sending only the abstracts and links you care about to your mailbox. It doesn’t, really--make it easier, that is. It’s too tempting to subscribe to several, and end up with 57 unread messages everyday, so I still rely on my links and my list of bookmarks (I’m power hungry, I suppose).

William Watson describes what he does with one of his services--I shouldn’t be surprised that I’m not the only one looking for the free information and skipping it when asked to pay. I’ll register for a paper (NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Chicago Trib) if it is free, and I’ll pass up the current issue of a journal if the archives are free. Library journals (of the profession pushing “information should be free” mantra) are almost never free. Even liberals want to be paid.

Anyway, Watson writes in this article:
“The way the SSRN works is if you like the abstract they've sent you, you can follow a handy link and download the full study. Most of the time the download is free but some of the institutes want money, usually $5 U.S. per study.I sometimes pay the five bucks but I must confess - truth in column writing requires it - that what I usually do instead is google the author's personal Web site to see if the paper is posted there. It usually is and - bingo! - the download is free. Think of it as Napster for nerds.”

And so he goes on to say open access is fine if you believe that journals with operating costs (like editors) provide no useful function, and that cheap drugs (he’s Canadian) are nice if you believe pharmaceutical research costs nothing. Free rides are not always free, is what I think he’s saying.