The best damn summary of everything that is wrong with scientific publishing:
(http://the-scientist.com/2012/03/19/opinion-academic-publishing-is-broken/)
QuoteLet's take a look at the flow of money in the production of research. The government takes tax revenue from citizens and uses it to fund university research groups and libraries. Researchers obtain government grants and use the money to conduct experiments. They write up the results in manuscripts that are destined to become published papers. Manuscripts are submitted to journals, where they are handled by other researchers acting as unpaid volunteer editors. They co-ordinate the process of peer-review, which is done by yet other researchers, also unpaid. All these roles—author, editor, reviewer—are considered normal responsibilities of researchers, funded by grants.
At this point, researchers have worked together to produce a publication-ready, peer-reviewed manuscript. But rather than posting it on the Web, where it can contribute to the world's knowledge, form a basis for future work, and earn prestige for the author, the finished manuscript is then donated gratis to a publisher: the author signs away copyright. The publisher then formats the manuscript and places the result behind a paywall. Then it sells subscriptions back to the universities where the work originated. Well-off universities will have some access to the paper (though even they are denied important rights such as text-mining). Less well-off universities have access to varying selections of journals, often not the ones their researchers need. And the taxpayers who funded all this? They get nothing at all. No access to the paper.
Let's say, you give me the goods, and then I give it back to you for a one time low fee, and to anyone else for the same. I'm sure you'll see this is an offer you can't refuse.
\
(http://assets.flavorwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ce_schapiro_godfather_012.jpg)
Man this makes me seethe.
Besides telling people in detail about it, what else can we do to address this? How can we start peeling greedy capitalist's fingers off of science research?
I think that there is a push going on to make articles more accessible. Thats a good start. The internets helping with that too since you dont really need publishing costs built in.
The other part would be to start writing in nirmal english. I used to hate checking papers for writing errors because i wouldnt immediately know if a word was made up or what. I think a big part of science illiteracy is that no one can really see what science is saying other than a poor summary in the news.
I think I remember something about studies funded by the Canadian gov't being required to be freely available to Canadian citizens. (although maybe that was just an initiative, and never actually happened?)
That would be a good start.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on March 22, 2012, 09:32:53 PM
the finished manuscript is then donated gratis to a publisher: the author signs away copyright.
Why?
Its a fucked up thing. You get paid in prestige not money. Its like going to an ivy league. You pay them and you have the honor of having a diploma with their name on it if they accept you.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on March 22, 2012, 09:32:53 PM
the finished manuscript is then donated gratis to a publisher: the author signs away copyright.
Why?
Because knowledge wants to be free, [did ya see whut I did there] and academics really, really, want to be published. Publication is the keystone to a successful academic career and the major academic publishing houses have developed over time to enable impoverished academics to basically vanity publish with the added bonus of having also created freely offered peer review. Academic publishing has burgeoned phenomenally over the last century or so. e.g. 100 years ago you could fit every anthropologist in Britain in an Oxbridge lecture theatre. The student body was on a similarly elite scale. I hardly dare estimate how many anthropologists there are today, and these are not the well heeled fathers, and occasionally mothers, of their disciplines who could afford to privately publish. And every student who puts a bum on a seat to support the edu-business needs grotesque amounts of set texts. And in amongst all that explosion of academic bumff nestles the genuinely significant theory, and the truly vital research piece.
edit to disciple a wayward vowel
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on March 22, 2012, 09:32:53 PM
the finished manuscript is then donated gratis to a publisher: the author signs away copyright.
Why?
A lot of publishing bodies are considered prestigious, for instance getting published in IEEE here is really hard. It's a messy situation, because these bodies can be great for contacts.
:fnord: camERon (http://pdx.academia.edu/CameronMSmith/StatusUpdates) `//// http://www.pcc.edu/
http://pcc.academia.edu/Departments/Instructional_Support_Distance_Education
http://pcc.academia.edu/KarenSorensen
http://pcc.academia.edu/KarenSorensen/RecentUpdates
http://pcc.academia.edu/MonicaMarloMG
http://pcc.academia.edu/LindaEden
http://pcc.academia.edu/cc
http://pcc.academia.edu/cc/StatusUpdates { BE SURE TO ADD status ****
http://pcc.academia.edu/BrentJacobs
http://pcc.academia.edu/MelanyBudiman
http://pcc.academia.edu/Departments/Anthropology
http://pcc.academia.edu/UmarNdiwalana
http://independent.academia.edu/SsebulibaWilson
http://pcc.academia.edu/MarkPoppert
http://pcc.academia.edu/Departments/Biology
http://pcc.academia.edu/WilliamBurgess
http://pcc.academia.edu/Departments/Black_Studies
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 22, 2012, 10:53:44 PM
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on March 22, 2012, 09:32:53 PM
the finished manuscript is then donated gratis to a publisher: the author signs away copyright.
Why?
You're right, you know. There are many journals now which are entirely published online, do not require payment from authors, are CC licensed, and open access.
Hell, my first scientific publication was in one of those journals.
The problem is that these long standing, high prestige journals are still under the grips of old school publishing. Nature, Science, Cell, etc. And they are still prestigious because they have high impact factors, and people want to be published in high impact journals because it gets them tenure.
It will change, of course. Elsevier's recent legal attempt is part of the death throe. PLoSOne is growing so quickly, and the big publishers are slowly fighting and fading. Eventually, people will only deal with them to get to the journal archives. Even in my field, where by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature taxonomic acts must be in physical repositories to be accepted, journals are finding ways to deal with this and be quite successful.
So, my answer would be, boycott the big publishers, take a small hit on impact factor and go the PLoS route.
I get the sense that the big science journals can be likened to major record labels...
Quote from: An Twidsteoir on March 24, 2012, 12:52:48 AM
I get the sense that the big science journals can be likened to major record labels...
Same publishing scheme. The old publishing scheme. The old school publishers of any media don't just want to make money, they want to make obscene amounts of money. And when they are the only option, they can get away with it. It's not good business to invest in a system that doesn't make as much money if your interest is making money.
Open access journals, on the other hand, have their priority firmly in making science available. Sure, they have net returns, but it's not of the same level.
3 ASk
do the author(s) have to sign over the copyright before the peer reviewing takes place?
if not, one could just submit it for review, then if it gets accepted just not sign it over for publishing and post it on the web somewheres
Quote from: 1SwellFOop on March 25, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
do the author(s) have to sign over the copyright before the peer reviewing takes place?
if not, one could just submit it for review, then if it gets accepted just not sign it over for publishing and post it on the web somewheres
idonno
i do wish it were clear 2Me
Quote from: 1SwellFOop on March 25, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
do the author(s) have to sign over the copyright before the peer reviewing takes place?
if not, one could just submit it for review, then if it gets accepted just not sign it over for publishing and post it on the web somewheres
What does that accomplish that just publishing it on the web doesn't?
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2012, 06:37:55 PM
Quote from: 1SwellFOop on March 25, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
do the author(s) have to sign over the copyright before the peer reviewing takes place?
if not, one could just submit it for review, then if it gets accepted just not sign it over for publishing and post it on the web somewheres
What does that accomplish that just publishing it on the web doesn't?
"I'm guessing9:46b
4 min 8m 35s
09:37:55 AM / 09:37:08 AM 47s v 09:46:30 8m 35s no way will
iwIN {eveR
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2012, 06:37:55 PM
Quote from: 1SwellFOop on March 25, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
do the author(s) have to sign over the copyright before the peer reviewing takes place?
if not, one could just submit it for review, then if it gets accepted just not sign it over for publishing and post it on the web somewheres
What does that accomplish that just publishing it on the web doesn't?
It's far more likely to get noticed. For instance if I wrote a really specific and obscure paper on RFID and publish online, no one will ever come across it. Loads of people read peer reviewed submissions in their magazines.
Quote from: Faust on March 25, 2012, 11:14:08 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 25, 2012, 06:37:55 PM
Quote from: 1SwellFOop on March 25, 2012, 03:51:22 PM
do the author(s) have to sign over the copyright before the peer reviewing takes place?
if not, one could just submit it for review, then if it gets accepted just not sign it over for publishing and post it on the web somewheres
What does that accomplish that just publishing it on the web doesn't?
It's far more likely to get noticed. For instance if I wrote a really specific and obscure paper on RFID and publish online, no one will ever come across it. Loads of people read peer reviewed submissions in their magazines.
But his premise that you would submit your paper, get it accepted, then, instead of allowing the journal to publish it, withdraw your submission and self-publish it on the web.
How would that increase your exposure?
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
If you want to have the best of both worlds, you can release earlier drafts of papers online without violating copyright, in most cases. Several academics seem to do this quite frequently and without repurcussion, so that would be the best strategy for maximising exposure.
Quote from: Cain on March 26, 2012, 07:20:12 AM
If you want to have the best of both worlds, you can release earlier drafts of papers online without violating copyright, in most cases. Several academics seem to do this quite frequently and without repurcussion, so that would be the best strategy for maximising exposure.
This seems like a more viable strategy.
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
[/quote]
that's what i wanted to know, having never submitted anything
cuz if it could be reviewed without submitting, then said reviewer(s) and editors would know the paper was of decent quality without actual publishing
might take longer for the general information to get out, but it would be peer-reviewed and free for the general public
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get
blacklisted.
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get blacklisted.
I guess it depends on the editorial process and how much notice you get before it goes to print. A lot of electronics and instrumentation magazines do it by theme. If you submit and your topic has come up it could be very quick indeed.
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get blacklisted.
I guess it depends on the editorial process and how much notice you get before it goes to print. A lot of electronics and instrumentation magazines do it by theme. If you submit and your topic has come up it could be very quick indeed.
I can believe that, for sure, but I'm not sure those follow the same protocols as peer-reviewed academic journals? I don't know a ton of published researchers, but I've never heard of anyone not receiving notification and congratulations that their study was accepted for publication. Usually there's a whole process, including in some cases an opportunity to defend criticisms or answer questions if the reviewers have any.
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get blacklisted.
I guess it depends on the editorial process and how much notice you get before it goes to print. A lot of electronics and instrumentation magazines do it by theme. If you submit and your topic has come up it could be very quick indeed.
I can believe that, for sure, but I'm not sure those follow the same protocols as peer-reviewed academic journals? I don't know a ton of published researchers, but I've never heard of anyone not receiving notification and congratulations that their study was accepted for publication. Usually there's a whole process, including in some cases an opportunity to defend criticisms or answer questions if the reviewers have any.
All university publications would go through that process, but at least of electronics, industry people wouldn't follow them too closely.
What are we arguing about?
The OP demonstrates the best way to squelch politically unpopular science that I have ever seen.
Trying to game that system just gives it credibility.
Quote from: Doktor Howl on March 27, 2012, 04:44:40 AM
What are we arguing about?
The OP demonstrates the best way to squelch politically unpopular science that I have ever seen.
Trying to game that system just gives it credibility.
ANNNND also this.
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:55:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get blacklisted.
I guess it depends on the editorial process and how much notice you get before it goes to print. A lot of electronics and instrumentation magazines do it by theme. If you submit and your topic has come up it could be very quick indeed.
I can believe that, for sure, but I'm not sure those follow the same protocols as peer-reviewed academic journals? I don't know a ton of published researchers, but I've never heard of anyone not receiving notification and congratulations that their study was accepted for publication. Usually there's a whole process, including in some cases an opportunity to defend criticisms or answer questions if the reviewers have any.
All university publications would go through that process, but at least of electronics, industry people wouldn't follow them too closely.
I don't know shit about electronics and instrumentation magazines. Are magazines, in this context, the same as research journals?
Quote from: Nigel on March 27, 2012, 07:41:24 AM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:55:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get blacklisted.
I guess it depends on the editorial process and how much notice you get before it goes to print. A lot of electronics and instrumentation magazines do it by theme. If you submit and your topic has come up it could be very quick indeed.
I can believe that, for sure, but I'm not sure those follow the same protocols as peer-reviewed academic journals? I don't know a ton of published researchers, but I've never heard of anyone not receiving notification and congratulations that their study was accepted for publication. Usually there's a whole process, including in some cases an opportunity to defend criticisms or answer questions if the reviewers have any.
All university publications would go through that process, but at least of electronics, industry people wouldn't follow them too closely.
I don't know shit about electronics and instrumentation magazines. Are magazines, in this context, the same as research journals?
We'll they go through peer review and they call you up to defend parts of it, the only thing is questions from the public are only taken when the public gets to read it, unlike say a viva where anyone can sit in until the commitee decide to grill you.
Quote from: Faust on March 27, 2012, 08:17:55 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 27, 2012, 07:41:24 AM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:55:52 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 11:40:18 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 11:15:29 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 10:56:53 PM
Quote from: Faust on March 26, 2012, 08:20:57 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 26, 2012, 05:20:01 AM
Unless I am unaware of some crucial component of publishing in which journals routinely publicize withdrawn submissions?
I didn't read that. And you couldn't withdraw it after submitting it, yuo wouldn't know until it's gone to print.
:? At least in medical fields, as far as I am aware, you can withdraw a paper at any time prior to publication by contacting the editorial office, although it's not usually considered ethical to withdraw it for reasons other than finding that the research contains serious flaws, and god help you if you withdraw it to submit it to a different journal because your ass will get blacklisted.
I guess it depends on the editorial process and how much notice you get before it goes to print. A lot of electronics and instrumentation magazines do it by theme. If you submit and your topic has come up it could be very quick indeed.
I can believe that, for sure, but I'm not sure those follow the same protocols as peer-reviewed academic journals? I don't know a ton of published researchers, but I've never heard of anyone not receiving notification and congratulations that their study was accepted for publication. Usually there's a whole process, including in some cases an opportunity to defend criticisms or answer questions if the reviewers have any.
All university publications would go through that process, but at least of electronics, industry people wouldn't follow them too closely.
I don't know shit about electronics and instrumentation magazines. Are magazines, in this context, the same as research journals?
We'll they go through peer review and they call you up to defend parts of it, the only thing is questions from the public are only taken when the public gets to read it, unlike say a viva where anyone can sit in until the commitee decide to grill you.
Unlike the process some researchers go through of submitting and resubmitting and being rejected by reviewers who clearly did not understand, or in some cases even read, their papers? There are so many issues with personality grudges affecting what gets accepted, especially in the more prestigious journals, and anonymity issues where are rarely even addressed.
Hey, this defines our scientific publishing system: "Sir, please take my money and then let me use something I THOUGHT UP.", but what's REALLY important is quibbling over minutia.
My PERSONAL problem, however, is never having found anyone I COULD pay to tell me what I already thought. I hand over the article, give them the raw data, their HEAD EXPLODES under the load and then I just take my article back from the dead body before the squad arrives, as well as whatever cash they had on them when I walked in. Its an amusing way to make a little extra scratch once in a while, but I'm no better off academically for all that effort and some of the stains you get from bursting craniums just plain won't come out.
I didn't publish this finding. Oh, poo.
I wonder if there's a way to introduce a viable alternative model, and what that might look like?
Quote from: Nigel on March 27, 2012, 05:54:59 PM
I wonder if there's a way to introduce a viable alternative model, and what that might look like?
Open access peer reviewed publication with anonymous pre-pub review and public post-pub review.
I mean, why do people publish things in the first place? Well, in many cases it's to make money, but fundamentally it's to get noticed. I can publish natural history stuff on my blog all day, but it probably won't add to The Pile because it isn't archived with Zoological Record.
In science there's also the extra effort needed to decide what is good and what is not. In literature, criticism is something more generally available. You or I or Joe Shmo down the street could criticize a novel and regardless of our background we might all have something interesting to say about it. But scientific research requires a more careful reading, and given the extensive background each paper relies for it's basis, the reader also needs to have knowledge of the field of research.
After publication, peer review pretty much handles itself. Researchers aren't known for being quiet about other people's mistakes. If an experiment is flawed, that will come out eventually. The more public the criticism, the faster the flaws will be revealed. With the Internet, such things are nearly instantaneous.
The pre-review is more tricky. It's a balancing act between letting one's field of research (or journal) being notorious for absolute dredge (the Italian Journal of Anatomy and Embryology doesn't exactly look good right now), and such a stickler that nothing creative or wildly revolutionary gets through the process. On one side is a ruined reputation, and on the other is stasis and decay. So you do some basic fact checking by letting other researchers pre-review the articles of their peers, maybe improve the articles, sometimes discard them entirely. Public pre-review would mean no one would ever want to review, lest you cross someone; publications are a researcher's reputation. And paying reviewers would just add more incentive for corruption. I've already determined that pulling reviewers from people who have more time on their hands is not advisable. Sometimes pre-review backfires, the ever possible failure of such a balance. But it works enough of the time for it to be effective.
Since people volunteer their time to do all this, the only cost of the publication is the printing and pre-printing design and editing. Open access journals avoid the thievery of Elsevier et al by making the product freely available.
tl;dr: PLoSOne /is/ the viable, alternative model. It's the best you'll get.
I'm starting to think that post-review is where the improvement needs to come.
5:11 Bored {maybe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/10/science-open-access-publishing
QuoteResearch that is funded by the public should be freely available to all – a move to open access modes of publication is overdue
As a scientist and citizen I want to see the universal adoption of the open access model of academic publishing, because it will be better for science and better for society.
Open access, where costs are met upfront by the author and papers are free to readers, would improve science by making all published results and ideas easily accessible to researchers across the world and so fuel the engine of discovery. At present, far too much of our research is locked behind paywalls that restrict access and stall progress.
By shifting ownership of scientific literature away from commercial publishers, open access also provides a clear acknowledgement that the bulk of its value comes from publicly funded scientists and not from publishing companies. This is an overdue correction that will also facilitate the spread of scientific information beyond the research community and among the wider public who, through their taxes and donations to charity, have a moral right to its outputs.
In a connected world, more and more people are realising that they need – and deserve – access to the scientific literature they have paid for, be they patient groups seeking to understand the latest medical research or citizens trying to grapple with research that impacts public policy on important issues such as climate change, drug use or genetically modified foods. Arguably, most members of the public would not be able to understand the primary scientific literature even if they had free access, but the mere fact of its availability – through a shift to open access – should stimulate a healthy demand from the public for more digestible reports from the scientists they support. Direct exposure of the scientific community to the public appetite for research results could even have positive effects on the formulation of research priorities.
More at link
Quote from: Cain on April 10, 2012, 10:08:31 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/10/science-open-access-publishing
QuoteResearch that is funded by the public should be freely available to all – a move to open access modes of publication is overdue
As a scientist and citizen I want to see the universal adoption of the open access model of academic publishing, because it will be better for science and better for society.
Open access, where costs are met upfront by the author and papers are free to readers, would improve science by making all published results and ideas easily accessible to researchers across the world and so fuel the engine of discovery. At present, far too much of our research is locked behind paywalls that restrict access and stall progress.
By shifting ownership of scientific literature away from commercial publishers, open access also provides a clear acknowledgement that the bulk of its value comes from publicly funded scientists and not from publishing companies. This is an overdue correction that will also facilitate the spread of scientific information beyond the research community and among the wider public who, through their taxes and donations to charity, have a moral right to its outputs.
In a connected world, more and more people are realising that they need – and deserve – access to the scientific literature they have paid for, be they patient groups seeking to understand the latest medical research or citizens trying to grapple with research that impacts public policy on important issues such as climate change, drug use or genetically modified foods. Arguably, most members of the public would not be able to understand the primary scientific literature even if they had free access, but the mere fact of its availability – through a shift to open access – should stimulate a healthy demand from the public for more digestible reports from the scientists they support. Direct exposure of the scientific community to the public appetite for research results could even have positive effects on the formulation of research priorities.
More at link
Great article. But to the bolded point -- I am suddenly reminded of Yudowsky's essay "To Spread Science, Keep it Secret (http://lesswrong.com/lw/p0/to_spread_science_keep_it_secret/)". It may not be relevant, though it is what sprang to mind while reading that line.
I have a confession to make.
The upcoming article I have now in press is /not/ open access.
It didn't cost out the wazoo to get published, because, like some other journals associated with professional societies, Entomological News nee American Entomological Society doesn't go through a Elsevier-esque publisher. But it does mean I can't just post a link to the article or hand it out on a website. I plan on blogging it when it comes out (not the sort of thing that people put in press releases), but it does bother me that this journal did not have an open access option. I would have paid for it, if it did.
Furthermore, the assistantship that allowed me do the work and write the paper was funded by the Department of Energy, so it's public money. This is, thankfully, only a smaller paper from a much larger project, and when finished will hopefully be published in a journal that has an open access option (like Freshwater Science (http://www.freshwater-science.org/Journal.aspx)).
There's a new philosophy journal out that is open access, and dedicated to publishing short (4,500 words or less) essays
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2161-2234
Unfortunately, it's going to close after two years, but I suspect this is being run as a trial for more open acess, short essay journals, so please spread the link freely and visit it as much as possible.
There's some interesting developments with some Psychology journals:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone/29045
Quote from: Telarus on April 19, 2012, 06:09:53 PM
There's some interesting developments with some Psychology journals:
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/is-psychology-about-to-come-undone/29045
Nosek told Science that a senior colleague warned him not to take this on "because psychology is under threat and this could make us look bad." In a Google discussion group, one of the researchers involved in the project wrote that it was important to stay "on message" and portray the effort to the news media as "protecting our science, not tearing it down." (//http://)
Sounds like religion to me.
Quote from: Net on March 22, 2012, 09:51:44 PM
Man this makes me seethe.
Besides telling people in detail about it, what else can we do to address this? How can we start peeling greedy capitalist's fingers off of science research?
One important part of this whole scam is--at least it was for me--as long as you're on a University network, you can access all journals your uni pays the subscription for
and never even notice there's a paywall involved. Because they whitelist by IP and only if your IP is not on the whitelist you get to see the paywall.
Of course you do notice it as soon as you try and access a paper at home, but at that point, while I was still in uni, I'd just go "oh I'll SSH-tunnel through my uni account as a proxy and get it like that" (or similar solutions). And then forget about it.
Only after I did not have access to that account anymore did I discover how many scientific papers are actually hidden from public view. But then you're outside, and no longer in a position to complain about it.
I think this is part of it, a lot of researchers/professors practically live in their university office, and they
never get confronted with the lack of their research' availability to the general public. All the peers they communicate with are also on university networks.
Fortunately, a lot of Computational Science papers (which is a subject I gladly devour a paper on, every now and then) are hosted on author's websites. True that some of them are "early drafts", but that doesn't really matter because the research is often long done by then, it's just some minor polishing before publication.
Re: Nigel/Faust's confusion. I think it's important to realize that different Sciences publish in different journals, and they all have different rules and guidelines for publishing. Nigel being more familiar with the medical and socio-demographical publications (I'm guessing from the sort of things she often quotes research on), and Faust with the electronics/computers/comp.sci articles. It's also different per university.
Fortunately, things
appear to be changing.
And otherwise we just need a few bold students to "liberate" some journals, like the JSTOR/MIT scandal. Except not get caught.
Quote from: Nephew Twiddleton on March 22, 2012, 10:18:24 PMThe other part would be to start writing in nirmal english. I used to hate checking papers for writing errors because i wouldnt immediately know if a word was made up or what. I think a big part of science illiteracy is that no one can really see what science is saying other than a poor summary in the news.
I'm not sure what you mean? That scientific articles are often badly written with bad grammar?
That's because it's often written by people whose first language is not English.
Some are really bad at it. But even when you're good with English, it's still pretty hard to use correct wordings for "serious" articles. When I look back at a few reports/articles I've written in English, some sentences are pretty bent, and I remember I spent a lot of time wrecking my brain to figure out in what order the words should go.
Here's another scandal: http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/the-fraud-who-fooled-almost-everyone/27917
Quote from: Triple Zero on April 19, 2012, 10:17:01 PM
Re: Nigel/Faust's confusion. I think it's important to realize that different Sciences publish in different journals, and they all have different rules and guidelines for publishing. Nigel being more familiar with the medical and socio-demographical publications (I'm guessing from the sort of things she often quotes research on), and Faust with the electronics/computers/comp.sci articles. It's also different per university.
That makes sense. I am really only familiar with journals that pertain directly or indirectly to health sciences, which is why I was asking Faust if the magazines he was talking about are comparable.
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448
QuoteWe write to communicate an untenable situation facing the Harvard Library. ... The Faculty Advisory Council to the Library, representing university faculty in all schools and in consultation with the Harvard Library leadership, reached this conclusion: major periodical subscriptions, especially to electronic journals published by historically key providers, cannot be sustained: continuing these subscriptions on their current footing is financially untenable. ... It is untenable for contracts with at least two major providers to continue on the basis identical with past agreements. Costs are now prohibitive. ... since faculty and graduate students are chief users, please consider the following options open to faculty and students (F) and the Library (L), state other options you think viable, and communicate your views:
Make sure that all of your own papers are accessible by submitting them to DASH in accordance with the faculty-initiated open-access policies (F). Consider submitting articles to open-access journals, or to ones that have reasonable, sustainable subscription costs; move prestige to open access (F). If on the editorial board of a journal involved, determine if it can be published as open access material, or independently from publishers that practice pricing described above. If not, consider resigning (F).
Quote from: Cain on April 24, 2012, 03:23:14 PM
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448
QuoteWe write to communicate an untenable situation facing the Harvard Library. ... The Faculty Advisory Council to the Library, representing university faculty in all schools and in consultation with the Harvard Library leadership, reached this conclusion: major periodical subscriptions, especially to electronic journals published by historically key providers, cannot be sustained: continuing these subscriptions on their current footing is financially untenable. ... It is untenable for contracts with at least two major providers to continue on the basis identical with past agreements. Costs are now prohibitive. ... since faculty and graduate students are chief users, please consider the following options open to faculty and students (F) and the Library (L), state other options you think viable, and communicate your views:
Make sure that all of your own papers are accessible by submitting them to DASH in accordance with the faculty-initiated open-access policies (F). Consider submitting articles to open-access journals, or to ones that have reasonable, sustainable subscription costs; move prestige to open access (F). If on the editorial board of a journal involved, determine if it can be published as open access material, or independently from publishers that practice pricing described above. If not, consider resigning (F).
Whoa. MUTINY!
Impressively broken.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/04/26/elsevier_picks_up_the_pace.php#921895
QuotePaper sent in to a mid-low ranked journal, rejected in 2 days at the editorial level (no reviews) for being "not of significant enough impact to warrant publication". Wrote an appeal to the EiC (blah blah, of course it's significant you moron!) 2 days later get a computer generated email congratulating me on having the paper accepted by the journal, and giving details on how to upload all the reqired files for publication (hi-res images etc.) Sent in the files, got the paper in press and with page #s. About 3 months later got an email from the EiC saying they had looked at our appeal and would be sending it out for peer review after all. I politely pointed out it was already in print, and got no response. Weird!
Quote from: Template on April 27, 2012, 04:42:32 AM
Impressively broken.
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/04/26/elsevier_picks_up_the_pace.php#921895
QuotePaper sent in to a mid-low ranked journal, rejected in 2 days at the editorial level (no reviews) for being "not of significant enough impact to warrant publication". Wrote an appeal to the EiC (blah blah, of course it's significant you moron!) 2 days later get a computer generated email congratulating me on having the paper accepted by the journal, and giving details on how to upload all the reqired files for publication (hi-res images etc.) Sent in the files, got the paper in press and with page #s. About 3 months later got an email from the EiC saying they had looked at our appeal and would be sending it out for peer review after all. I politely pointed out it was already in print, and got no response. Weird!
Honestly, pre-pub review /shouldn't/ take that long. Especially with the ubiquitous requirement that authors send names and email addresses of potential reviewers with their manuscript. The best thing reviewers could do, IMO, is to bring these manuscripts to their weekly lab meetings and do a journal club style session. Incidentally, this is also the best way to do post-pub review.
The reason this doesn't happen is that there is such an air of fearful confidentiality, the fear of being scooped, or having ideas stolen.