Then, because they estimated that their search engines missed some free articles, they bumped the number up to 50 percent...

The wording isn't the best and increasing what you're looking for by almost 20% claiming it to be error of the search engine doesn't sound to credible. While they do mentioned that paywall sites usually release it after a year. Why don't they take that year limit into consideration?

I'm no statistician and perhaps I'm being nitpicky, but the two numbers of 32% made by European Commision funding doesn't seem compareable to the 50% made by the company itself. They are using different time frames and time is an important factor on when papers become free.

It'd be interesting seem how quickly papers are released for public access now compared to then/2008 (e.g. immediately, 6 months, 1 year, etc.)

Edit: I suppose I should actually read the paper first before jumping to conclusions. brb

So after reading of the actual report, it seems like Science-Metrix "wasn't satisfied with the results" due to the scope and the way it was carried out, not because of the scope. I suppose that's what misled me. It'd still be interesting to do a temperature check on papers to see how quickly OA is provided.

Here are a few of the many things I find ridiculous about the scientific publishing industry.

1) Editors at private companies get to decide what research is the most important. They have become the authority we all must bow down to in order to advance our careers. Funny, but I was taught in school that science doesn't accord any individual special authority over the value or correctness of knowledge. But if you are a scientist trying to feed your family, you must respect the authority of these editors. It has gotten to the point where it really doesn't matter if your research is of good quality, or important, just that it is published in the right journal. Other scientists admire you if you publish in Nature, and they ridicule you if you publish in Nucleic Acids Research.

2) University Professors, who are paid by the government, do work for these private publishing companies, for free. They review these articles. I guess it's a pay-to-play system, but it is wasteful of taxpayer $.

It should all be free and accessible to everyone one that has internet, i see no down side to free information.

Paywalls are pointless now and also hinders alot specially for the poor, of whom could equally have the minds of those that have the money to buy papers.

So yeah im all for free information. Get rid of paywalls. I don't know any scientist that does what they do to make money as their primary objective.

I wonder if Einstein made people pay to read his papers. Or did he just freely give them out to any one who wanted to learn.

Finally :)
The most paywalled research articles are those related to medicine. This is not only frustrating but also greatly limits society's knowledge about potentially life-saving research.
It is hard to ask a doctor about a new treatment when you don not know it even exists.