Some people believe that all results of publicly funded scientific studies should be made available to the general public free of charge. Others believe the scientific journals that publish such studies have a right to make money by charging for access to their content.
Knowledge is power. The advancement of the human society is founded on scientists making innovative and scientific discoveries and developing novel technology. Many scientific studies receive funding from the government. Therefore, they should be provided to the public free of charge to drive the progress of scientific research.
The world was devastated by the coronavirus pandemic and health professionals scrambled to find a vaccine for the pathogen. Consequently, governments poured billions into research to search for a solution to mitigate the spread of the virus and protect the health of the people. Imagine if a publicly funded study uncovered new symptoms of the coronavirus or treatments for the coronavirus, but a journal decided to hide the findings behind a paywall. The public would be outrageous over the journal’s decision to value money over public health, and such a selfish act could cause infected patients to suffer from severe illnesses or even lose their lives. Providing research results free of charge could enable scientific progress worldwide and benefit mankind, particularly during a global pandemic in which the entire world was gravely impacted.
When a government funds a study, the funding ultimately comes from taxpayers. Therefore, arguing that the research findings of a publicly funded study belong to the journal would only be half correct, because the people have supported the study and would be entitled to access the results of the study. Some people may disagree and state that since readers are using the services of the journal, they should pay to enjoy the services of the journal. However, this argument is only valid for privately funded studies because such studies require reimbursements as fundings for future research. Publicly funded studies, however, already receive their funding from the government and are not obligated to acquire more funding. Suppose that a journal charged a fee for access to publicly funded studies. Readers would in effect be paying for nothing, because the government has already paid for the study The additional fee would simply be earned by the journal and the journal’s rent-seeking behavior benefits no one except the journal.
In conclusion, accessible knowledge can benefit scientific developments and drive social growth, and it could potentially save lives during global crises. Some may argue that journal readers should pay for journal services. However, demanding that people who have paid for publicly funded studies in the form of taxation to pay again to journals would be unfair, since the studies have already been paid. Therefore, publicly funded research should be free to the public for the greater good of humanity and for equality.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-06-07 | Mateo Chen | 50 | view |
- Most of the money devoted to basic scientific research should instead be diverted to applied scientific research 50
- The best way to teach is to praise positive actions and ignore negative ones Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and sup 50
- This is part of a lecture by a professor of political science Forty years ago the country of Byzantia started life as a parliamentary democracy but shortly thereafter it found itself at war with neighboring Yakistan After spending the national coffers on 63
- In 2010 the Elmrose Corporation housed all of its operations and employees in one office Since then the company has expanded to multiple locations and has seen profits decline steadily each year Clearly if Elmrose wants to boost profits it should relocate 78
- Progress should be the aim of any great society People too often cling unnecessarily to obsolete ways of thinking and acting because they enjoy feeling comfortable and fear the unknown 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 4, column 166, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Possible agreement error - use third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'argues'.
Suggestion: argues
...ve lives during global crises. Some may argue that journal readers should pay for jou...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, however, if, may, so, therefore, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 16.0 14.8657303371 108% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 11.0 33.0505617978 33% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 12.9106741573 62% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2321.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 429.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.41025641026 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.75390735826 2.79657885939 98% => OK
Unique words: 212.0 215.323595506 98% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.494172494172 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 710.1 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.7498654707 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 116.05 118.986275619 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.45 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.25 5.21951772744 62% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.422152849103 0.243740707755 173% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.135002349862 0.0831039109588 162% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0832717159278 0.0758088955206 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.281932807283 0.150359130593 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.051459494632 0.0667264976115 77% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.1 12.1639044944 116% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.24 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 124.0 100.480337079 123% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 11.8971910112 63% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.