Tax payer funded uni research- who owns & benefits from research? Academic journal $$ scam!!

KEY NOTE - EVERYTHING discussed in here is in reference to tax payer funded research - it is/should ALL be owned by the citizens upon completion but an "intelligentsia mafia" is making BILLIONS on hoarding and selling this data to the public
This is long,I'm sorry, but it's a complex topic that I've been dealing with for 20+ years and it's gotten progressively worse by magnitudes the last 10 years. It is maybe the most important issue facing research institution in the world & deals with gate keepers of "new knowledge" keeping it for only those they deem worthy - creating monopolies of their choosing - which can explain our current Tech giants.

This is a MAJOR issue when it comes to people being able to access research published in journals, or just published research papers, like dissertations, doctoral thesis's and other research papers. If a person's tuition/college is paid for by a federal grant, their research is considered public once they publish for their degree/graduation. Then there are specific research universities that get BILLIONS per year (I've seen as much as $30 billion per year in university research being spent, at times it's more or less). This could be in computers, electronics, bio-tech, pharmacology, computer science/security, physics, ANYTHING. The university gets $$ to pay their professors & assistants as well as buy their equipment (and they pay TOP DOLLAR for this equipment - it's truly insane what some of this equipment costs - it's probably only second to parts/supplies in the Military/DOD as far as price markups - and they have to use a few specialized companies - there's about 3-5 main companies for chem/physics/sciences).

SO when the research is finished, the researchers loose the rights to the "gains" from that research and it goes to the university who can sell patents (another scam b/c the Gov paid for this knowledge). Then the papers HAVE to be published in journals. Papers can be anywhere form 4-5 pages up to 100+ pages, not many are longer than that unless it is a VERY long, decade long study.
The author chooses the journal in which to publish, if it will be acceptable, some are more prestigious, some are more accessible (like all major universities have access vs only a select few - maybe 20-50 uni's/colleges), so they have to decide who get's there research and that really effects who sees the results of this data.


These journals then claim publishing rights to the papers and they allow access to these online from ~$38 to over $1000 for a single paper, which they didn't have to buy or do anything for.

Now the kicker is that some major universities, like the top ivy league universities own the journals and are gate keepers as to who can see this data, because they have VERY difficult membership account structures to be a member. You want Computer Science and Bio Tech? Great, you have to subscribe to ALL content at $10 million per quarter ($40 million / year) but if you want studies of asexual post gender manatees in a patriarchrially structured lagoon, well you can buy these studies ala carte at a reasonable price of $487 per download through your university account.

Now much of the new research is not available unless you are a member of a university, but your university has to be a member of that publisher to access these and there all kinds of limits, rules, etc. One research project could require 1,000 articles, which could cost the university over $50,000 for that access! Some "special schools" pay a lot more but have unlimited access, to multiple publishers, and it creates a method of "gatekeeping information" where only the elite can afford current info (less than 3-5yrs old), or it is EXTREMELY expensive.

An example of this is Wifi standards. VERY few can afford to buy access to the papers where these are being designed and as such there are thousands of holes found over the years. Had 100,000 people read the papers when they were published, those holes woudl have been found and fixed before they became a standard. This has happened for almost every computer 7 electronics standard for the last 40-50 years - which is why we have so many security problems.

The average joe can buy access for $25-70 per article, but much of it is many years old. They can use many sites to access this.

A man named Aaron Schwartz wrote a program while at MIT that downloaded every file accessed on their network and accumulated over 4 million articles and he published them openly and freely on VERY little budget (less than a couple thousand dollars). He was arrested & bailed out and about a year later "died" from suicide or a heart problem - it was totally suspicious.
Then a Russian hacker did something similar using thousands of donated passwords to sites to access the publishers whenever an article was requested. So someone would go to their site - www.sci-hub.tw (may be different now) and enter the URL for the article it wanted, the site would log in randomly with one of the THOUSANDS of supplied passwords (by sympathetic university staff) and download the article and store it on their server while also passing it onto the person requesting it. So every time you use it, you are helping expand the communities knowledge if it didn't already have the article.
To date, they have amassed over 80 million articles, more than any single one publisher and are operating on a budget of less than a poorly paid IT tech in eastern Europe, that includes storage & hosting in 6 countries & backups across the world (torrent files so it can never be brought down!!). SO this shows the cost of running the LARGEST journal sight.

Now the argument that the journal companies (industry valued at $17.8-25.4 BILLION per year in revenue) make is that there are MASSIVE costs to hosting the data, indexing all the journals, and providing access to the articles through their client portals. They also claim they have to "peer review" which has been proven that more fake journal submissions make it through than honest ones - so when about 50 articles were submitted for publications, 1/2 completely falsified, the other half 100% accurate, the vast majority of the false ones passed the peer review test while a large number of the legit ones failed (not 1/2 but it said a "fair portion were found to be fraudulent while a vast majority of the fake submissions were passed peer review for publication). So these "peer reviews" were the other major cost that are supposed to account for them charging $1000 for a single article. Even Harvard found it could no longer afford full access to their traditional publicist (even though Harvard partially owned them!).

So, this entire industry is a raqueet and I believe fit for a RICO investigation. On top of that, ALL data that receives even a cent of tax payer money should be published in an open and public database immediately upon completion and BEFORE it is submitted to any other journal. Also, any patents obtained from the research based on tax payer money should be put into some kind of trust and be over-seen by a trustee where proceeds are returned to the education system to help pay for K-12 & colleges.

Then there are specific research universities that get BILLIONS per year (I've seen as much as $30 billion per year in university research being spent, at times it's more or less).

Lol, wut? Please share one piece of credible evidence of that a single university gets BILLIONS per year directly from taxpayers.

And what was the point of this spurious and specious diarrhea of unfounded assertions?

Private universities (those Ivy League example you driveled out) don’t owe taxpayers an ounce of access — not that a JSTOR subscription is cost prohibitive for serious researchers — and ask Jim Goodnight if universities have complete ownership of IP/patents.

You should dig elsewhere because you’re not even close to the truth

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You do realize that there's a difference between a universities endowment and their research budget, right?
Do you see BILLIONS of research money on this top 20 list, from 2018?


thebestschools.org...-budgets

originally posted by: Cravens

Then there are specific research universities that get BILLIONS per year (I've seen as much as $30 billion per year in university research being spent, at times it's more or less).

Lol, wut? Please share one piece of credible evidence of that a single university gets BILLIONS per year directly from taxpayers.

And what was the point of this spurious and specious diarrhea of unfounded assertions?

Private universities (those Ivy League example you driveled out) don’t owe taxpayers an ounce of access — not that a JSTOR subscription is cost prohibitive for serious researchers — and ask Jim Goodnight if universities have complete ownership of IP/patents.

You should dig elsewhere because you’re not even close to the truth

These are from 2014/2015 school year. Amounts have gone up significantly since.
2017 Johns hopkins total annual R&D had reached almost $2.65 billion (their federal researched had increased as well)
Below are 2014/2015
Johns Hopkins total federal research funds - $2billion, Annual R&D ependiture $2.3billion
Uni of Washington total federal research funds - $961 million - annual R&D $1.2 billion
U of michigan total federal research funds - $756 mil - $1.4billion - Annual R&D ependiture $2.3billion
Stanford total federal research funds - $680 - $1 billion - Annual R&D ependiture $2.3billion
U Cal @ San Diego - total federal research funds - $655 million - $1.1 billion - Annual R&D ependiture $2.3billion
U of Penn - total federal research funds - $ 620 million - $865 million - Annual R&D ependiture $2.3billion

www.msn.com...=16

When I did my calculations (after finding out Blasey Ford's research budget, I had to investigate...) I found that California schools received over $7 billion in federal reseach money in 2014/2015 and that doesn't include "private R&D".
The thing about "private R&D" is that in a VAST number of cases it is government funded as well, or heavily subsidized, some with matching amounts for research, or even going above the amounts for various interests. But it's all hidden in government contracts, bids for development of "technology" where they get say $1billion to work on the heads up display for the F35, well they might partner with MIT or Cal Tech and give them $200-600 million to come up with a solution to which they own the patent. THAT is government money no matter how you spin it.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

You do realize that there's a difference between a universities endowment and their research budget, right?
Do you see BILLIONS of research money on this top 20 list, from 2018?

thebestschools.org...-budgets

You make no sense. Those ARE their research budgets. Endowments are totally different. Johns Hopkins has a $4.33 billion as reported in 2018 but your chart shows $2.3 billion in research budget. DO you think that budget is an endowment? They have NOTHING to do with each other, ZERO.

Harvard on the other hand, and U of Penn, have endowments of $38.3 billion and $13.8 billion respectively. Their research budgets as of 2014/2015 were Harvard - $551 million (Fed funds) and $1 billion R&D annual expenditures - vs U Penn $616 million (federal funds) & $864 anual R&D budget/expenditures

Your chart is lacking in differentiating federal funding vs total R&D expenditures.


We also have to look at how much money goes to these school outside of just federal research funding. What about general funding for normal running of the campus? Surely that accounts for something. If they take state of federal $ then they gots to hand over the fruits of that money. The professors can't keep their fruits, they sign it over to the university, which was funded by tax payers in a VAST majority of cases.

Now i will admit that there probably are some cases where some studies are solely funded by the universities, and if that is the case, then I can see those being omitted, but if it is a state university, funded by the state and federal $$, then nope, it's publicly owned information by the tax payer.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

The US pumps entirely too much public money into an education system that produces such failures, is so inefficient, and still manages to leave so many millions deeply in debt after school. I think we need to reassess exactly what the purpose of education is and while doing so, wean any program that doesn't produce intellects in demand enough to pay back the cost of their education in taxes at a marked growth rate over what the education cost the tax payer off of the public dole entirely. In other words, if it doesn't make dollars, then it shouldn't receive a single cent of tax money.

originally posted by: Cravens

Then there are specific research universities that get BILLIONS per year (I've seen as much as $30 billion per year in university research being spent, at times it's more or less).

Lol, wut? Please share one piece of credible evidence of that a single university gets BILLIONS per year directly from taxpayers.

And what was the point of this spurious and specious diarrhea of unfounded assertions?

Private universities (those Ivy League example you driveled out) don’t owe taxpayers an ounce of access — not that a JSTOR subscription is cost prohibitive for serious researchers — and ask Jim Goodnight if universities have complete ownership of IP/patents.

You should dig elsewhere because you’re not even close to the truth

Wow you are a sad sac of, well, we all know what. Please show me ONE Ivy league university I "driveled out". Name one in the OP, just one! ANY! You can see there are no edits, so I didnt' change anything. Is your reading comprehension THAT bad? I can't imaging where you work, I feel REALLY bad for your employer if that is your ability to comprehend.

As for what you state about owing access to JSTOR, or whatever, I'm not really making a claim to that. I'm saying that a new repository WILL be created where EVERY single research paper that received any federal funding will be legally required to be published, for the public, at the same time it releases the publication to any other journal. It will also most likely be retroactively implemented to all past tax payer funded research papers.

Europe is already leading the way with this, and it IS going to happen here, it's just a matter of how long the publishers are going to fight this and if they are willing to risk RICO charges for continuing an organized crime syndicate.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Honestly, I can’t be bothered to read any more of your nonsense.

A few things: 1) you driveled out “Ivy League” w.r.t. (e.g. an example in your OP) some perceived suppression of knowledge paid for, but not owned, by the taxpayers and I mentioned JSTOR. 2) these are, in most cases, are funds allocated to research fields of study that the government can’t do themselves (e.g. outsourcing equipment) but are very much involved in.

I could go on and on, pointing out what a sad sac [sic] of, well, ya know , nonsense.

But just to satiate that unquenchable thirst for ‘your’ truth, here’s from the article:

The principal funding source of the remaining four institutions -- Johns Hopkins University, Georgia Institute of Technology, Pennsylvania State University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology -- is the Department of Defense.

Whadda ya know, the biggest bogeyman (I will spell it out to avoid you missing up your drivel: boogeyman because the institution receives the highest per annum), John Hopkins University, in your racket (that’s the correct spelling, not raqueet) gets the lion’s share from the DoD. You think the VA or JHU is better equipped to help understand and treat wartime PTSD? Or who has the better the neurological staff trying to uncover TBI treatments?

And because it’s your thread and linked article, you go back in there read where it states the other largest benefactor to university research funds is the health and human services bureaucracy. Wonder if research universities can nefariously collaborate, using said monies to create a healthier and more humane populace. The things I meditate on.

I gotta eat, but if wanna get buried even further, respond to someone else that has the wherewithal to bring more ‘troof’ to this thread.

#MentalMidgetClassOf2019