[rnadna]

Re "deprivation ... from everybody"...

I was told once that the typical paper in my field gets only two serious readers, beyond the reviewers. (The joke is that it gets only two, including three reviewers.)

Of course, it is impossible to know who has read a paper, and that may explain why I've never seen the number written down. Still, it's easy to count citations. In my field, strong papers get perhaps a dozen citations. My guess is that no more than a quarter of citations indicates a thorough reading, so we indeed get a readership that could be counted on one hand.

For an author, a big factor is page charges. A popular [society, noncommercial] journal that I use has a special deal for providing content to readers for free. It "only" costs 3K. At that rate, the one or two potential readers who lack a university subscription could just phone me and I could buy them a ticket to visit, where I could explain the work in person.

[victorh]

That's because that journal is doing it wrong and someone there is getting too much money. You give me 3k and I'll seed a torrent for one thousand papers as long as my Internet is billed per month instead of per GB. I just saw some redditors link a torrent with tens of gigabytes of technical books, so the method appears to work just fine. And if the author's intent is to distribute it wouldn't be violating anyone's copyright.

[rnadna]

The journal owns the copyright, not the author.

[pseut]

Yes, exactly. I think people arguing for "freedom" here need to start listing what papers they want to read and why. Most research isn't exactly accessible even if you hand someone a copy of the paper.