Two main goals converge in this conflict of interest. The main goal of researchers and academics is to disseminate their work and help to improve science and knowledge. On the other hand, publishers conduct private business, with the logical aim of generating economic benefits.<\/p>\n
Big publishing houses have two aspects that make this situation possible: high reputation and well-regarded review systems. However, it is in the hands of universities and research centers to give reputation to other publishers. After all, they have the researchers that actually do\u00a0the work. Therefore, the appropriate question would be: how are universities and research centers going to define their position?<\/p>\n
Science as the Final Goal<\/h2>\n
According to Fullerton, reform efforts could be translated into savings for the universities, but there are also other reasons to consider supporting non-profit publishers. For instance, many insist that some centers can not pay such costs to access the content. This means that some publishing houses are leaving some researchers aside. Is this slowing down or affecting academic research worldwide? That is also why non-profit systems would help academics work together and be of benefit to science<\/a>.<\/p>\n However, an adaptation to other systems looks like a\u00a0difficult procedure. Obviously, they can not just stop collaborating with publishers from one day to the next, or to expect a new publishing house to make a name for itself in a couple of months. But even if the process would last years, betting on non-profit publishing models looks like a good solution for many. It can be the way to level the playing field and no longer consider money, but science as the final goal.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.enago.com\/academy\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdf-generator-for-wp\/admin\/src\/images\/PDF_Tray.svg\" "\\"Generate")
<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"