Access2research petition

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Access2research petition

Dario Taraborelli-3
(apologies for cross-posting)

A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.

http://access2research.org/
http://wh.gov/6TH

25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.

Dario
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition

Richard Jensen
that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of
journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years
as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.

The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more
dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.

Richard Jensen

At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:

>(apologies for cross-posting)
>
>A petition you should care about: require free access over the
>Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>
>http://access2research.org/
>http://wh.gov/6TH
>
>25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response
>from the White House.
>
>Dario
>_______________________________________________
>Wiki-research-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition

Dario Taraborelli-3
With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The NIH – as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding bodies worldwide – has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.

Best,
Dario

On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>
> The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>>
>> http://access2research.org/
>> http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.
>>
>> Dario
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Richard Jensen
Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the
editors' and scholarls point of view and not say
you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal
prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so
that's not a real issue.   I've been on the
editorial boards of eight scholarly journals &
all would be in real trouble on free access. Who
would pay their bills?  Who would pay their grad
students?   Already they  are threatened by
declining university budgets and losing the
subscription base would be a terrific
blow.  "Access for the "taxpayers" / "taxpayers
pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to
defund science. It is the professors and graduate
students who need the journals and who would be hurt when they close.

Richard Jensen

At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:

>With all due respect, your statement is simply
>false and ill-informed. The NIH ­ as well as a
>growing number of large research institutions
>and funding bodies worldwide ­ has been
>mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like
>to see any evidence that this is "destroying
>peer review". There are many sustainable open
>access models that publishers and scholarly
>societies are adopting, the only thing this
>campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's
>obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.
>
>Best,
>Dario
>
>On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:
>
> > that's a bad idea--it will destroy the
> financial base of thousands of journals and
> throw the whole science community into turmoil
> for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
> >
> > The alternative of direct government subsidy
> of journals is even more dangerous, as it will
> give politicians control over what gets published.
> >
> > Richard Jensen
> >
> > At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
> >> (apologies for cross-posting)
> >>
> >> A petition you should care about: require
> free access over the Internet to journal
> articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
> >>
> >> http://access2research.org/
> >> http://wh.gov/6TH
> >>
> >> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19)
> gets an official response from the White House.
> >>
> >> Dario
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> [hidden email]
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wiki-research-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Janet Hawtin
There are at least two schools of thought on open access.
If there are businesses that make their way through closed journal
subscriptions there are also avenues for publishing open access.
Libraries are increasingly finding it difficult to pay for journals as
the charges for bundled journals are increasing dramatically.
Some academics are actively boycotting Elsevier.
It is not surprising that this is a time when people are questioning
the existing model and looking for other ways to publish and access
scientific data.
Certainly (imho) it is logical that public funded data should be
available for use by the public.
Perhaps it is time for those publishing to see why people are
questioning the value of the existing model and to reconsider their
value proposition.

Janet

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:31 PM, Richard Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the editors' and scholarls point
> of view and not say you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal prices have
> gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's not a real issue.   I've been on
> the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals & all would be in real
> trouble on free access. Who would pay their bills?  Who would pay their grad
> students?   Already they  are threatened by declining university budgets and
> losing the subscription base would be a terrific blow.  "Access for the
> "taxpayers" / "taxpayers pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to defund
> science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the journals
> and who would be hurt when they close.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>>
>> With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The
>> NIH ­ as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding
>> bodies worldwide ­ has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like
>> to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many
>> sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are
>> adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's
>> obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.
>>
>> Best,
>> Dario
>>
>> On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:
>>
>> > that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of
>> > journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the
>> > main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>> >
>> > The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more
>> > dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>> >
>> > Richard Jensen
>> >
>> > At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> >> (apologies for cross-posting)
>> >>
>> >> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet
>> >> to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>> >>
>> >> http://access2research.org/
>> >> http://wh.gov/6TH
>> >>
>> >> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response
>> >> from the White House.
>> >>
>> >> Dario
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Richard Jensen

The funding agencies in the U.S. typically provide a) publication
page-charges by the journals; b) "indirect costs" which are used to
fund the library purchase of journals as well as run the campus. The
notion that taxpayers "should not pay twice" seems to say that a) and
b) should be ended. Furthermore no one will need to pay for a journal
subscription to read the contents, which (I predict) will lead to a
very large falloff in (c) paid subscriptions.  The petition will mean
journals that get their funds from a-b-c, will be sharply curtailed
financially.  (there are also membership societies that have journals
and I think they will lose a lot of subscribers too.) So who will
step in to support the academic journals?? the taxpayers? the tuition
payers? the foundations? I fear none of them will.

Richard Jensen


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Dario Taraborelli-3
In reply to this post by Richard Jensen
Richard, I don't want to take over the thread to push a personal opinion, the purpose of my mail was to share an important petition that I believe many on this list should be aware of.

Since you mention "editors and scholars" and the purpose of "paid subscriptions", though, let me add a short note. I don't know about you, but as reviewers and editors most of us do editorial work as a service to the profession: we don't get paid by publishers, we are not subsidized by journal subscriptions. The (closed-access) journals I've been involved with as editorial board member are not threatened by open access: if anything they are threatened by the unsustainable fees that the publisher charges universities and consortia. Academia (that is, authors, reviewers, editors, students) is not supported by journals fees (it would be awesome if it were), publishers are, and in my opinion it's about time to change this.

Dario

On May 20, 2012, at 11:01 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the editors' and scholarls point of view and not say you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's not a real issue.   I've been on the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals & all would be in real trouble on free access. Who would pay their bills?  Who would pay their grad students?   Already they  are threatened by declining university budgets and losing the subscription base would be a terrific blow.  "Access for the "taxpayers" / "taxpayers pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to defund science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the journals and who would be hurt when they close.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The NIH ­ as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding bodies worldwide ­ has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.
>>
>> Best,
>> Dario
>>
>> On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:
>>
>> > that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>> >
>> > The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>> >
>> > Richard Jensen
>> >
>> > At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> >> (apologies for cross-posting)
>> >>
>> >> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>> >>
>> >> http://access2research.org/
>> >> http://wh.gov/6TH
>> >>
>> >> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.
>> >>
>> >> Dario
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Richard Jensen
Let's ask: Who will pay for publication?  taxpayer=no, tuition = no;
university = no; there is one more option that is adopted when open
access is required.  Here's the notice at the website of a British
journal: http://journals.physoc.org/site/misc/publicaccess.xhtml

"To assist authors whose funding agencies mandate public access to
published research findings sooner than 12 months after publication
The Journal of Physiology and Experimental Physiology, ...currently
offer authors the option of paying an open access fee to have their
papers made freely available upon publication. The fee is US$3,000."

That is the author pays $3000 to the journal for each article it accepts.

Fees at other journals  mostly run from $1000 to $5000   (If you are
a graduate student living on $15,000 a year as a teaching assistant
and you need to publish to get a job, well there goes your lunch
money. Two articles?...that's rough)  see the list of charges at
major journals at
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/oa_fees.html

The history and sociology journals I know about hire grad students
who will lose their jobs if the journals' funding declines.

Richard Jensen



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Janet Hawtin
Some regular journals charge to make an article open access.
It is their approach to open access. Other models exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Richard Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Let's ask: Who will pay for publication?  taxpayer=no, tuition = no;
> university = no; there is one more option that is adopted when open access
> is required.  Here's the notice at the website of a British journal:
> http://journals.physoc.org/site/misc/publicaccess.xhtml
>
> "To assist authors whose funding agencies mandate public access to published
> research findings sooner than 12 months after publication The Journal of
> Physiology and Experimental Physiology, ...currently offer authors the
> option of paying an open access fee to have their papers made freely
> available upon publication. The fee is US$3,000."
>
> That is the author pays $3000 to the journal for each article it accepts.
>
> Fees at other journals  mostly run from $1000 to $5000   (If you are a
> graduate student living on $15,000 a year as a teaching assistant and you
> need to publish to get a job, well there goes your lunch money. Two
> articles?...that's rough)  see the list of charges at major journals at
> http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/scholarlycommunication/oa_fees.html
>
> The history and sociology journals I know about hire grad students who will
> lose their jobs if the journals' funding declines.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

James Salsman-2
In reply to this post by Richard Jensen
Dr. Jensen,

You ask who will pay for publication of journals under the open access model.

Closed access journals are supported primarily by university libraries
which pay subscription fees to publishers.  Very rarely do the
publishers pay anything to the editors and reviewers who produce the
journals, but they pocket a continuously increasing profit margin,
which has been increasing at about 1% per year, and currently stands
at about 27%, per
http://www.reedelsevier.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2012/Pages/reed-elsevier-2011-results-announcement.aspx
In order to achieve such continually increasing profit margins,
publishers have been forcing price increases through bundling, which
is an abuse of their monopolistic market power which lack of
competition from alternative publishing models has allowed them to
attain.

Under the open access model, universities pay to support the
publication and printing of the journals, but do not pay subscription
fees.  Because there is no profit margin charged, these costs are less
to the university than commercial subscription fees, and the resulting
readership is not limited to a tiny fraction of the population.
(Because costs to the universities are less, they can keep more of the
money for university official perks and salaries, tax deductible
junkets for the faculty, and athletic salaries.  Sadly, universities
hardly ever pass any savings on to tuition payers.  Every subsidy and
loan guarantee supporting tuition in the postwar era has been matched
by tuition increases above the cost of living, sadly, while university
administrative official salaries have kept pace with CEO salaries
generally, exacerbating income inequality, and increases in faculty
salaries, perks, and expenses have also exceeded the inflation rate.)
As you point out, this situation often results in greater charges to
graduate students, unless their sponsors and grant investigators are
kind enough to include the journal production fees in their department
budget.  How often does that happen?

Your example of journals charging per-paper open access fees is an
example of subtle extortion in order to cause professors such as
yourself and other authors to take the position that you have, opposed
to open access.  Are there any reasons to the contrary?  Are there any
reasons that participation in such market manipulation schemes could
be seen as ethical?

Sincere regards,
James Salsman

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

John Mark Vandenberg
A good example is the Queensland University of Technology Library
paying the open access journal article publishing fees for their
academics.  Because its good business.  They would rather push their
researchers towards OA journals, thereby building the impact of OA
journals, and meaning they can drop non-OA journals from their
subscriptions.

http://www.mendeley.com/research/support-gold-open-access-publishing-strategies-qut/

A practical experiment. ask your Office of VC-Research how many
journal articles your university produced in 2011.  Times it by
USD5,000.  Compare the result with your libraries journal subscription
fees for 2012.

The UIC library doesnt give exact numbers online, but here they give
aggregate costs of the 126 ARL libraries.

http://library.uic.edu/home/services/publishing-and-scholarly-communication/the-cost-of-journals

If every university did that maths, with the same conclusion, they
would agree that there is an enourmous saving to be had if all
universities use open access.

Governments and funding bodies are doing the maths, and the smart ones
are forcing everyones hand by mandating OA in order to obtain funding.

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, James Salsman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Dr. Jensen,
>
> You ask who will pay for publication of journals under the open access model.
>
> Closed access journals are supported primarily by university libraries
> which pay subscription fees to publishers.  Very rarely do the
> publishers pay anything to the editors and reviewers who produce the
> journals, but they pocket a continuously increasing profit margin,
> which has been increasing at about 1% per year, and currently stands
> at about 27%, per
> http://www.reedelsevier.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2012/Pages/reed-elsevier-2011-results-announcement.aspx
> In order to achieve such continually increasing profit margins,
> publishers have been forcing price increases through bundling, which
> is an abuse of their monopolistic market power which lack of
> competition from alternative publishing models has allowed them to
> attain.
>
> Under the open access model, universities pay to support the
> publication and printing of the journals, but do not pay subscription
> fees.  Because there is no profit margin charged, these costs are less
> to the university than commercial subscription fees, and the resulting
> readership is not limited to a tiny fraction of the population.
> (Because costs to the universities are less, they can keep more of the
> money for university official perks and salaries, tax deductible
> junkets for the faculty, and athletic salaries.  Sadly, universities
> hardly ever pass any savings on to tuition payers.  Every subsidy and
> loan guarantee supporting tuition in the postwar era has been matched
> by tuition increases above the cost of living, sadly, while university
> administrative official salaries have kept pace with CEO salaries
> generally, exacerbating income inequality, and increases in faculty
> salaries, perks, and expenses have also exceeded the inflation rate.)
> As you point out, this situation often results in greater charges to
> graduate students, unless their sponsors and grant investigators are
> kind enough to include the journal production fees in their department
> budget.  How often does that happen?
>
> Your example of journals charging per-paper open access fees is an
> example of subtle extortion in order to cause professors such as
> yourself and other authors to take the position that you have, opposed
> to open access.  Are there any reasons to the contrary?  Are there any
> reasons that participation in such market manipulation schemes could
> be seen as ethical?
>
> Sincere regards,
> James Salsman
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
John Vandenberg

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition

David Golumbia
In reply to this post by Dario Taraborelli-3
what I find concerning is the sentiment expressed in the original email: "a petition you should care about," esp. where "care about" seems to mean, "will want to sign."

my understanding is that wiki-research-l is about research into and about how the wikis work. it is not, as far as I know, a platform for political endorsements, especially for ones not directly related to wikimedia (which this is not). the petition takes a political position about an issue not directly related to the wikis, although i do not deny that it may be of interest to wikipedians--but so are many things.

is it not possible that some of us on this list might have a different take on the underlying issue, and that while we might also care about the topic that is raised, we may not actually endorse the position taken by the petition, and our reluctance might actually be considered and genuine? (as a matter of fact, in this case, I think I do support the petition, but its use of vague and categorical language makes me hesitant to sign it. the NIH policy you reference and which i do endorse includes at least two provisions not clearly indicated in the current petition: [1] the NIH policy specifically and exclusively refers to principal investigators and the institutions of direct NIH-funded research, a much narrower category than whatever is meant by "taxpayer-funded research"; [2] the NIH policy requires copies of publications to be deposited in a central free repository [PubMed], but does not comment on the existence of non-open source publication venues. this petition asks for "free access over the internet," which does not sound like the same thing as PubMed, even if that's what's meant; it sounds like it might mean "no more journals that charge for access," which in my opinion is an explosive request that attacks the livelihoods of many people of good faith.)  The NIH policy, for reference: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/FAQ.htm.

given the recent and in my opinion unwarranted and misguided attack on the nonprofit journal aggregator JSTOR on this list (somewhat retracted by the person who made the original comments, including the strange assertion that "we"--presumably readers of this list and contributors to wikipedia--"are unaffiliated scholars"), I would hope some care would be taken in approaching this matter in particular. some of us are academics and some of us do not, apparently, see it is as transparently obvious that all our work product should be available absolutely for free. (although i wholeheartedly endorse the widespread creation in US colleges and universities of institutional repositories wherein all professorial research is made available for free to anyone; i make all of my work available this way and have for over a decade, and I believe this kind of policy is rapidly becoming the rule here).

i honestly don't see what the petition has to do with wiki-research-l, but at the very least, an acknowledgement that the rest of the list readers are intelligent human beings, perhaps some of us even working academics, who may want to read the material and make up our own minds would strike me as indicating the respect you ask Richard Jensen to display.

one of Richard Jensen's earlier postings was about ways to get more working academics to participate in Wikipedia, which i do see as an ongoing issue of real concern. i did not see a big outpouring of support for his desire on this list, which worries me. I see signs of persistent assumptions that we do not read this list and are not part of the community, and I include the wording of the original post in this--since among other things, this petition is a direct request for the government to intervene in the working relationship between academic scientists and their publishers, and this list is run by neither academic scientists nor publishers and does not generally discuss policy issues regarding their conduct. Such assumptions do not inspire me to contribute more, or to encourage my colleagues to do so. I hope these assumptions are not widespread and I hope we are welcome to be part of the community.


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli <[hidden email]> wrote:
With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The NIH – as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding bodies worldwide – has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.

Best,
Dario

On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>
> The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>>
>> http://access2research.org/
>> http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.
>>
>> Dario
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
David Golumbia
[hidden email]

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
In reply to this post by Richard Jensen
Dear Richard, 

   I am not sure the difference lies in the different viewpoints of editors and scholars on one side, and taxpayers on the other.  Let us just say in terms of practices and empirical evidence, journals in various disciplines have their own choices to be made adopting free versus open access (though the choice is increasingly less binary these days).  Then can we move on by respecting different alternatives to change and/or maintain status quo?  

   However, to me it is much an important differences in terms of institutions.  You have university/research institutions who conduct research on one hand, and you have publishing institutions who provide indexing and accessing services on the other.  And each of them could be public or private institutions, with different sets of revenues and goals.  Not every interest of institutions are properly aligned like major university such as Oxford which have both major research institution and major publishing institution.   Thus, it is possible for research/teaching institutions like Princeton (which has also good publishing institution) to make a conscious decision to adopt an open access policy as below:


   While it is not a "pure" open access policy, it is a policy that highlight the interests of research/teaching institutions may not be aligned perfectly in every case.  Perhaps in your own experience, the tensions (if not conflicts) of interests in teaching/researching on one hand and getting revenue/money to run a publishing work can be managed in your context, and the benefits to introduce open access outweight the disruptions and potential issues it may cause.  

   Here the nature of "public" institutions such as Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia communities may and should have another set of approaches in dealing with open access policies and push whatever they think is the best for them and for the eco-system of research and publishing.

    Therefore, instead of taking a grand stance (almost to the ideological level) regarding for or against open access, I suggest that a practical (even to the mundane level of to-do laundry lists of pros versus cons) approach is better for institutions and communities to find the most appropriate solutions for them.  Here, Dario as a researcher working for Wikimedia Foundation whose institution is defined legally largely with its signature open access license, has a mission of free knowledge for all, and has a user base which may lean a bit to open access concepts and practices, it is conceivable that he asks the members in this mailing list to sign up for the petition.  It is difficult to argue that the petition is not in the overall interest of Wikimedia as an institution, Wikipedia as a free knowledge for all practice, and arguably most important of all, allowing non-university or poor-university researchers /wikipedians to improve articles.  

    So chill and relax.  If you think Dario is really joining an opposing force that will change the academic and media environment as you know it for the worse, then it is a very big (and sort of US-based if not -centric) public policy debate to be have.   But I am curious, can you lay out any reasons why Wikimedia or Wiki researchers should oppose this idea here in this mailing list, given the some of the obvious positions they have on open content licenses?  

Best,
han-teng liao

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Richard Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the editors' and scholarls point of view and not say you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's not a real issue.   I've been on the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals & all would be in real trouble on free access. Who would pay their bills?  Who would pay their grad students?   Already they  are threatened by declining university budgets and losing the subscription base would be a terrific blow.  "Access for the "taxpayers" / "taxpayers pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to defund science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the journals and who would be hurt when they close.

Richard Jensen

At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The NIH ­ as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding bodies worldwide ­ has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.

Best,
Dario

On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>
> The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>>
>> http://access2research.org/
>> http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.
>>
>> Dario
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Han-Teng Liao (OII)-2
sorry a typo here: (in the first paragraph)  adopting "non-"free versus open access  

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Han-Teng Liao <[hidden email]> wrote:
Dear Richard, 

   I am not sure the difference lies in the different viewpoints of editors and scholars on one side, and taxpayers on the other.  Let us just say in terms of practices and empirical evidence, journals in various disciplines have their own choices to be made adopting free versus open access (though the choice is increasingly less binary these days).  Then can we move on by respecting different alternatives to change and/or maintain status quo?  

   However, to me it is much an important differences in terms of institutions.  You have university/research institutions who conduct research on one hand, and you have publishing institutions who provide indexing and accessing services on the other.  And each of them could be public or private institutions, with different sets of revenues and goals.  Not every interest of institutions are properly aligned like major university such as Oxford which have both major research institution and major publishing institution.   Thus, it is possible for research/teaching institutions like Princeton (which has also good publishing institution) to make a conscious decision to adopt an open access policy as below:


   While it is not a "pure" open access policy, it is a policy that highlight the interests of research/teaching institutions may not be aligned perfectly in every case.  Perhaps in your own experience, the tensions (if not conflicts) of interests in teaching/researching on one hand and getting revenue/money to run a publishing work can be managed in your context, and the benefits to introduce open access outweight the disruptions and potential issues it may cause.  

   Here the nature of "public" institutions such as Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia communities may and should have another set of approaches in dealing with open access policies and push whatever they think is the best for them and for the eco-system of research and publishing.

    Therefore, instead of taking a grand stance (almost to the ideological level) regarding for or against open access, I suggest that a practical (even to the mundane level of to-do laundry lists of pros versus cons) approach is better for institutions and communities to find the most appropriate solutions for them.  Here, Dario as a researcher working for Wikimedia Foundation whose institution is defined legally largely with its signature open access license, has a mission of free knowledge for all, and has a user base which may lean a bit to open access concepts and practices, it is conceivable that he asks the members in this mailing list to sign up for the petition.  It is difficult to argue that the petition is not in the overall interest of Wikimedia as an institution, Wikipedia as a free knowledge for all practice, and arguably most important of all, allowing non-university or poor-university researchers /wikipedians to improve articles.  

    So chill and relax.  If you think Dario is really joining an opposing force that will change the academic and media environment as you know it for the worse, then it is a very big (and sort of US-based if not -centric) public policy debate to be have.   But I am curious, can you lay out any reasons why Wikimedia or Wiki researchers should oppose this idea here in this mailing list, given the some of the obvious positions they have on open content licenses?  

Best,
han-teng liao


On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Richard Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the editors' and scholarls point of view and not say you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's not a real issue.   I've been on the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals & all would be in real trouble on free access. Who would pay their bills?  Who would pay their grad students?   Already they  are threatened by declining university budgets and losing the subscription base would be a terrific blow.  "Access for the "taxpayers" / "taxpayers pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to defund science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the journals and who would be hurt when they close.

Richard Jensen

At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The NIH ­ as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding bodies worldwide ­ has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.

Best,
Dario

On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>
> The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>>
>> http://access2research.org/
>> http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.
>>
>> Dario
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

the gulf between Wikipedia and Academe

Richard Jensen
Han-Teng Liao highlights a very serious issue regarding the large
gulf between Wikipedia and academe. University students appear to be
enthusiastic users of Wikipedia while the professors either shy away
or are quite hostile and warn their students against Wikipedia.

One factor is academe's culture of original research and personal
responsibility by name for publications, versus Wikipedia's culture
of anonymity and its rejection of the notion that an editor can be
respected as an expert.

A second factor is the need for editors to have free access to
published reliable secondary sources. I think Google-scholar and
Amazon have solved much of the editors' access problem regarding books.

As for journals--which is where this debate started--I do not think
that open access will help Wiki editors much because I am struck by
how rarely Wiki articles (on historical topics) cite any journal
articles.  I've offered to help editors get JSTOR articles but no one
ever asks.  There is something in the Wiki culture that's amiss here.
Possibly it's that few Wiki editors ever took the graduate history
courses that explain how to use scholarly journals.

Maybe we need a program to help our editors overcome this gap and
give them access to a massive base of highly relevant RS.

Richard Jensen


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the gulf between Wikipedia and Academe

WereSpielChequers-2
Hi Richard,

Apart from Featured Article work, I suspect that a very large proportion of our referencing is driven by Google search and latterly Google Books. There have been a few schemes to give the more active editors accounts with various reference sources - some Highbeam accounts were recently divvied out, and a large proportion of us in the UK can get such subscriptions via our libraries. But if the first phase of Wikipedia was people writing what they knew, we are still largely in the second phase with most of the sourcing done via the Internet. 

It would be interesting to see if there were many takers for a training session on using other sources, but with the majority of our editors, and especially the content creators, being graduates, post graduates or current undergraduates it would be a fair assumption that a very large proportion of our editors know how to access journals, but it would be interesting to find out whether they don't do so due to lack of time lack of access or some other reason.


As for the idea that students use the pedia and professors disparage it, that is of course something of a simplification, a few months ago I met someone who'd been to a Cambridge meetup and been in the minority of non-professors present. But Cambridge will of course be ahead of the game in this sort of thing. I suspect the main issue here is conservatism, and in a few years time Academics who are hostile to Wikipedia will be as common as Academics who despise electronic calculators.

This issue of experts and Wikipedia is more complex. Wikipedians are rightly suspicious of "experts" who claim that their innate knowledge should override that of reliable sources. But experts who clearly know their subject, can communicate it to a general audience and can furnish sources to back up their content are usually well respected, especially if they waive pseudonymity and use their userpage to link to their University page. The areas where that doesn't quite work tend to be ones where Academic views are contentious in real life. Climate change being an extreme example. 


Regards


WSC

On 21 May 2012 18:26, Richard Jensen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Han-Teng Liao highlights a very serious issue regarding the large gulf between Wikipedia and academe. University students appear to be enthusiastic users of Wikipedia while the professors either shy away or are quite hostile and warn their students against Wikipedia.

One factor is academe's culture of original research and personal responsibility by name for publications, versus Wikipedia's culture of anonymity and its rejection of the notion that an editor can be respected as an expert.

A second factor is the need for editors to have free access to published reliable secondary sources. I think Google-scholar and Amazon have solved much of the editors' access problem regarding books.

As for journals--which is where this debate started--I do not think that open access will help Wiki editors much because I am struck by how rarely Wiki articles (on historical topics) cite any journal articles.  I've offered to help editors get JSTOR articles but no one ever asks.  There is something in the Wiki culture that's amiss here. Possibly it's that few Wiki editors ever took the graduate history courses that explain how to use scholarly journals.

Maybe we need a program to help our editors overcome this gap and give them access to a massive base of highly relevant RS.

Richard Jensen


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the gulf between Wikipedia and Academe

Richard Jensen
thanks for the note--

I largely agree.  Are relations between Wiki and Academe better in
UK? I hope so

Richard
At 12:51 PM 5/21/2012, you wrote:

>Hi Richard,
>
>Apart from Featured Article work, I suspect that a very large
>proportion of our referencing is driven by Google search and
>latterly Google Books. There have been a few schemes to give the
>more active editors accounts with various reference sources - some
>Highbeam accounts were recently divvied out, and a large proportion
>of us in the UK can get such subscriptions via our libraries. But if
>the first phase of Wikipedia was people writing what they knew, we
>are still largely in the second phase with most of the sourcing done
>via the Internet.
>
>It would be interesting to see if there were many takers for a
>training session on using other sources, but with the majority of
>our editors, and especially the content creators, being graduates,
>post graduates or current undergraduates it would be a fair
>assumption that a very large proportion of our editors know how to
>access journals, but it would be interesting to find out whether
>they don't do so due to lack of time lack of access or some other reason.
>
>
>As for the idea that students use the pedia and professors disparage
>it, that is of course something of a simplification, a few months
>ago I met someone who'd been to a Cambridge meetup and been in the
>minority of non-professors present. But Cambridge will of course be
>ahead of the game in this sort of thing. I suspect the main issue
>here is conservatism, and in a few years time Academics who are
>hostile to Wikipedia will be as common as Academics who despise
>electronic calculators.
>
>This issue of experts and Wikipedia is more complex. Wikipedians are
>rightly suspicious of "experts" who claim that their innate
>knowledge should override that of reliable sources. But experts who
>clearly know their subject, can communicate it to a general audience
>and can furnish sources to back up their content are usually well
>respected, especially if they waive pseudonymity and use their
>userpage to link to their University page. The areas where that
>doesn't quite work tend to be ones where Academic views are
>contentious in real life. Climate change being an extreme example.
>
>
>Regards
>
>
>WSC
>
>On 21 May 2012 18:26, Richard Jensen
><<mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]> wrote:
>Han-Teng Liao highlights a very serious issue regarding the large
>gulf between Wikipedia and academe. University students appear to be
>enthusiastic users of Wikipedia while the professors either shy away
>or are quite hostile and warn their students against Wikipedia.
>
>One factor is academe's culture of original research and personal
>responsibility by name for publications, versus Wikipedia's culture
>of anonymity and its rejection of the notion that an editor can be
>respected as an expert.
>
>A second factor is the need for editors to have free access to
>published reliable secondary sources. I think Google-scholar and
>Amazon have solved much of the editors' access problem regarding books.
>
>As for journals--which is where this debate started--I do not think
>that open access will help Wiki editors much because I am struck by
>how rarely Wiki articles (on historical topics) cite any journal
>articles.  I've offered to help editors get JSTOR articles but no
>one ever asks.  There is something in the Wiki culture that's amiss
>here. Possibly it's that few Wiki editors ever took the graduate
>history courses that explain how to use scholarly journals.
>
>Maybe we need a program to help our editors overcome this gap and
>give them access to a massive base of highly relevant RS.
>
>Richard Jensen
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wiki-research-l mailing list
><mailto:[hidden email]>[hidden email]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wiki-research-l mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Piotr Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by Richard Jensen
Bills for what?

Dead tree publication? Obsolete, switch to print on demand.

Online publication? Once you have free access (no need to set up a "web
shop" and collect money), web publishing is relatively simple. Hundreds
of thousands if not millions have created web pages, and it is much
easier to do so now than it was in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if
there already was an OA journal friendly host and/or website creation
kit; if there isn't, creating one wouldn't be a major problem (for the
kit, free hosts like Google Sites are even less of an issue). If a given
editing team has next to zero Internet literacy, ask among the grad
students (hire one or get them to volunteer).

Labor? As in authors? Editors? Reviewers? It's not like they are being
paid under a current model.

To sum it up, the only real cost associated with journal publishing is
that of a single grad student who acts as an assistant/managing editor.
That's the cost of about $1,000-$1,500 a month. That doesn't seem
terrible, considering the potential sources of funding (universities,
grants, professional associations and donations). And as much as I hate
to say it, if this amount is really a problem (let the slaving grads
starve...), that job could be outsourced for a fraction of that cost to
somebody through the Internet freelancing portals. Consider that you can
hire people for $20-$30 an hour for such tasks, and consider how many
hours really go into this kind of a job...


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski


On 5/21/2012 2:01 AM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the editors' and scholarls
> point of view and not say you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal
> prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's not a real
> issue.   I've been on the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals
> & all would be in real trouble on free access. Who would pay their
> bills?  Who would pay their grad students?   Already they  are
> threatened by declining university budgets and losing the subscription
> base would be a terrific blow.  "Access for the "taxpayers" /
> "taxpayers pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to defund
> science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the
> journals and who would be hurt when they close.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> With all due respect, your statement is simply false and
>> ill-informed. The NIH ­ as well as a growing number of large research
>> institutions and funding bodies worldwide ­ has been mandating open
>> access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is
>> "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access
>> models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only
>> thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to
>> pay twice for research they have already funded.
>>
>> Best,
>> Dario
>>
>> On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:
>>
>> > that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands
>> of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for
>> years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>> >
>> > The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even
>> more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets
>> published.
>> >
>> > Richard Jensen
>> >
>> > At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> >> (apologies for cross-posting)
>> >>
>> >> A petition you should care about: require free access over the
>> Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>> >>
>> >> http://access2research.org/
>> >> http://wh.gov/6TH
>> >>
>> >> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official
>> response from the White House.
>> >>
>> >> Dario
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> [hidden email]
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > [hidden email]
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition

Piotr Konieczny-2
In reply to this post by Richard Jensen
Peer review is not working very well as it is.

If you want to fix peer review, redirect a fraction of the current
journal profits to actually pay reviewers (if only - for the timely
reviews).

Piotr, who currently has one article waiting for a reviewer for 13
months, and another, for 11. Sigh.

--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski


On 5/21/2012 1:30 AM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of
> journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years
> as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>
> The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more
> dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> A petition you should care about: require free access over the
>> Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>>
>> http://access2research.org/
>> http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response
>> from the White House.
>>
>> Dario
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Access2research petition = bad idea

Juliana Bastos Marques
In reply to this post by Piotr Konieczny-2
Piotr's evaluation is very much in tone with what happens in Brazil, where all journals are open access.

For journal publishing tools, most journals here use  the Public Knowledge Project: http://pkp.sfu.ca/. I would also refer to you the SCIELO project (again?):  http://www.scielo.org/php/index.php.

Indeed, costs would include revising, copydesk and page design - usually covered here by a grant for a graduate student. 

Juliana.




On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Piotr Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Bills for what?

Dead tree publication? Obsolete, switch to print on demand.

Online publication? Once you have free access (no need to set up a "web shop" and collect money), web publishing is relatively simple. Hundreds of thousands if not millions have created web pages, and it is much easier to do so now than it was in the past. I wouldn't be surprised if there already was an OA journal friendly host and/or website creation kit; if there isn't, creating one wouldn't be a major problem (for the kit, free hosts like Google Sites are even less of an issue). If a given editing team has next to zero Internet literacy, ask among the grad students (hire one or get them to volunteer).

Labor? As in authors? Editors? Reviewers? It's not like they are being paid under a current model.

To sum it up, the only real cost associated with journal publishing is that of a single grad student who acts as an assistant/managing editor. That's the cost of about $1,000-$1,500 a month. That doesn't seem terrible, considering the potential sources of funding (universities, grants, professional associations and donations). And as much as I hate to say it, if this amount is really a problem (let the slaving grads starve...), that job could be outsourced for a fraction of that cost to somebody through the Internet freelancing portals. Consider that you can hire people for $20-$30 an hour for such tasks, and consider how many hours really go into this kind of a job...


--
Piotr Konieczny

"To be defeated and not submit, is victory; to be victorious and rest on one's laurels, is defeat." --Józef Pilsudski



On 5/21/2012 2:01 AM, Richard Jensen wrote:
Sorry Dario, you need  to look at it from the editors' and scholarls point of view and not say you are thinking of the "taxpayer"--journal prices have gone up but taxes have gone down, so that's not a real issue.   I've been on the editorial boards of eight scholarly journals & all would be in real trouble on free access. Who would pay their bills?  Who would pay their grad students?   Already they  are threatened by declining university budgets and losing the subscription base would be a terrific blow.  "Access for the "taxpayers" / "taxpayers pay twice" is  a rhetorical tool designed to defund science. It is the professors and graduate students who need the journals and who would be hurt when they close.

Richard Jensen

At 11:45 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
With all due respect, your statement is simply false and ill-informed. The NIH ­ as well as a growing number of large research institutions and funding bodies worldwide ­ has been mandating open access for 4 years and I'd like to see any evidence that this is "destroying peer review". There are many sustainable open access models that publishers and scholarly societies are adopting, the only thing this campaign is threatening is the taxpayer's obligation to pay twice for research they have already funded.

Best,
Dario

On May 20, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Richard Jensen wrote:

> that's a bad idea--it will destroy the financial base of thousands of journals and throw the whole science community into turmoil for years as the main quality control system --peer review--is destroyed.
>
> The alternative of direct government subsidy of journals is even more dangerous, as it will give politicians control over what gets published.
>
> Richard Jensen
>
> At 11:19 PM 5/20/2012, you wrote:
>> (apologies for cross-posting)
>>
>> A petition you should care about: require free access over the Internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research.
>>
>> http://access2research.org/
>> http://wh.gov/6TH
>>
>> 25,000 signatures in 30 days (by June 19) gets an official response from the White House.
>>
>> Dario
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l


_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
123