Some people believe that it is good to share as much information as possible in scientific research, business and the academic world. Others believe that some information is too important or too valuable to be shared freely.
It is believed by some people that information should be provided freely as much as possible, for everyone to access. Others believe that some information are too valuable that being shared freely should not be allowed. This paper will discuss both sides of the topic.
Knowledge should be accessible for everyone despite their social status. It is believed that information should be shared freely to help others gain the same knowledge. People who do not have enough resources to learn should be given a chance to acquire knowledge as much as rich people do. Also, for example research papers on particular topic that is shared online, could pave ways for other people not only to learn, but also continue to do further researches or studies. This could trigger a debatable topic, and thus, enrich the community with superior knowledge.
However, everything entirely free would not be beneficial towards the publishers or researchers. Publishers should at least be acknowledged or credited for their work as it is something which requires a lot of time and effort. Fortunately, there are websites which offer paid subscriptions to users where information; such as papers, are offered freely once subscribed. This is very beneficial to publishers as they could gain royalties when someone access their work. Many universities have already signed up for these websites for their students to use with no payment charged.
In conclusion, every individual should have the rights to access knowledge equally. This could enrich the society by helping each other gain more knowledge. However, publishers should also be credited for their work as it requires a lot of time to write a single paper.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 451, Rule ID: HE_VERB_AGR[1]
Message: The pronoun 'someone' must be used with a third-person verb: 'accesses'.
Suggestion: accesses
... they could gain royalties when someone access their work. Many universities have alre...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, so, thus, at least, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 13.1623246493 129% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 14.0 7.85571142285 178% => OK
Conjunction : 6.0 10.4138276553 58% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 10.0 7.30460921844 137% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 24.0651302605 83% => OK
Preposition: 23.0 41.998997996 55% => More preposition wanted.
Nominalization: 5.0 8.3376753507 60% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1428.0 1615.20841683 88% => OK
No of words: 274.0 315.596192385 87% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.21167883212 5.12529762239 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.0685311056 4.20363070211 97% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.7009962386 2.80592935109 96% => OK
Unique words: 154.0 176.041082164 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.56204379562 0.561755894193 100% => OK
syllable_count: 442.8 506.74238477 87% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.60771543086 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 5.43587174349 110% => OK
Article: 0.0 2.52805611222 0% => OK
Subordination: 0.0 2.10420841683 0% => More adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 2.0 0.809619238477 247% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 1.0 4.76152304609 21% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 16.0 16.0721442886 100% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 20.2975951904 84% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 30.4138126515 49.4020404114 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 89.25 106.682146367 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.125 20.7667163134 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.6875 7.06120827912 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.38176352705 91% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.01903807615 20% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 8.67935871743 138% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 1.0 3.9879759519 25% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 3.4128256513 88% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.220519168072 0.244688304435 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0860452413678 0.084324248473 102% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.139513979201 0.0667982634062 209% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.164738777489 0.151304729494 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.164359385505 0.056905535591 289% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 11.7 13.0946893788 89% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 54.22 50.2224549098 108% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.44779559118 118% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 9.9 11.3001002004 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.64 12.4159519038 102% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.51 8.58950901804 99% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 78.4519038076 89% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 9.78957915832 72% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 10.1190380762 87% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 10.7795591182 83% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 61.797752809 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.5 Out of 9
---------------------
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.