[Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

David Gerard-2
It's such a pity that Elsevier's attempt to legally block open access
requirements [1] means that they must be destroyed utterly with not
one stone left upon another and the ground salted. I'm crying real[2]
tears here.

http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/09/21/how-do-you-recognize-a-catastrophe/
http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/files/2012/09/Berstein-report-on-Elsevier.pdf

The world's smallest violin is playing the world's quietest tune, at
$39.50 a play for non-subscribers.


- d.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_Works_Act
[2] may not be 100% true.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Tim Starling-2
On 23/09/12 05:24, David Gerard wrote:

> It's such a pity that Elsevier's attempt to legally block open access
> requirements [1] means that they must be destroyed utterly with not
> one stone left upon another and the ground salted. I'm crying real[2]
> tears here.
>
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/09/21/how-do-you-recognize-a-catastrophe/
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/files/2012/09/Berstein-report-on-Elsevier.pdf
>
> The world's smallest violin is playing the world's quietest tune, at
> $39.50 a play for non-subscribers.

According to the PDF, each published article costs them 1954 GBP, and
brings in a revenue of 3256 GBP. A very nice business to be in. They
already charge the authors a processing fee of 2000 GBP per article,
so they could break even with open access, without increasing the
author fee at all. That would be bad for investors, but the company
would survive. So maybe it's not quite time to dance on Elselvier's grave.

-- Tim Starling


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Risker
On 23 September 2012 22:24, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23/09/12 05:24, David Gerard wrote:
> > It's such a pity that Elsevier's attempt to legally block open access
> > requirements [1] means that they must be destroyed utterly with not
> > one stone left upon another and the ground salted. I'm crying real[2]
> > tears here.
> >
> >
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/09/21/how-do-you-recognize-a-catastrophe/
> >
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/files/2012/09/Berstein-report-on-Elsevier.pdf
> >
> > The world's smallest violin is playing the world's quietest tune, at
> > $39.50 a play for non-subscribers.
>
> According to the PDF, each published article costs them 1954 GBP, and
> brings in a revenue of 3256 GBP. A very nice business to be in. They
> already charge the authors a processing fee of 2000 GBP per article,
> so they could break even with open access, without increasing the
> author fee at all. That would be bad for investors, but the company
> would survive. So maybe it's not quite time to dance on Elselvier's grave.
>
>

I tend to agree with Tim Starling that Elselvier (and other for-profit
journal publishers) still have a place.   The author's processing fee
(which covers peer review and publication costs) that Elselvier currently
charges would probably not even cover the cost of peer reviewing; they
depend on sales to make up the difference. Remember that they bundle the
less popular journals with the popular ones, to defray those costs across
several publications.  Thus, the scientist in the little-known field whose
professional journals are read by hundreds doesn't pay significantly more
for "processing"  than the scientist whose professional journal is read by
tens of thousands.

Even open access journals will need to ensure that they charge enough to
cover the costs of peer review, or their publications will be essentially
useless:  even Wikipedia expects that sources used to back
scientific/medical statements be from peer-reviewed journals. That cost
will have to come from the researcher; the articles that David links to
indicates that the "true" cost of peer review is more than double what most
of these journals are currently charging as "processing fees".   A decrease
in the number of peer-reviewed journals in any scientific topic area can
have fairly disastrous effects on research: almost all research grants
require publication in peer-reviewed journals.  If the number of journals
available for consideration of publication is increasingly limited,
scholars will have an increasingly difficult time publishing and may have
to pay those "processing fees" to multiple journals before their report is
accepted.  That's money that's being taken away from the actual science.
It also increases the motivation to seek out research grants from
organizations with deep pockets (including those in the private sector),
and we all know that scientists who accept research grants from Big
Business tend to be considered "sell-outs".

There's no good answer here.  In an ideal world, there would be lots of
Open Access journals with low processing fees that would publish good
peer-reviewed scientific studies regardless of their "popularity".  There's
a long way to go before this will make fiscal sense.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
In the wiki-research mailing list we are talking about Open-Access journals
and new ways to publish and disseminate research results. A summary is
available http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas

2012/9/24 Risker <[hidden email]>

> On 23 September 2012 22:24, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 23/09/12 05:24, David Gerard wrote:
> > > It's such a pity that Elsevier's attempt to legally block open access
> > > requirements [1] means that they must be destroyed utterly with not
> > > one stone left upon another and the ground salted. I'm crying real[2]
> > > tears here.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/09/21/how-do-you-recognize-a-catastrophe/
> > >
> >
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/files/2012/09/Berstein-report-on-Elsevier.pdf
> > >
> > > The world's smallest violin is playing the world's quietest tune, at
> > > $39.50 a play for non-subscribers.
> >
> > According to the PDF, each published article costs them 1954 GBP, and
> > brings in a revenue of 3256 GBP. A very nice business to be in. They
> > already charge the authors a processing fee of 2000 GBP per article,
> > so they could break even with open access, without increasing the
> > author fee at all. That would be bad for investors, but the company
> > would survive. So maybe it's not quite time to dance on Elselvier's
> grave.
> >
> >
>
> I tend to agree with Tim Starling that Elselvier (and other for-profit
> journal publishers) still have a place.   The author's processing fee
> (which covers peer review and publication costs) that Elselvier currently
> charges would probably not even cover the cost of peer reviewing; they
> depend on sales to make up the difference. Remember that they bundle the
> less popular journals with the popular ones, to defray those costs across
> several publications.  Thus, the scientist in the little-known field whose
> professional journals are read by hundreds doesn't pay significantly more
> for "processing"  than the scientist whose professional journal is read by
> tens of thousands.
>
> Even open access journals will need to ensure that they charge enough to
> cover the costs of peer review, or their publications will be essentially
> useless:  even Wikipedia expects that sources used to back
> scientific/medical statements be from peer-reviewed journals. That cost
> will have to come from the researcher; the articles that David links to
> indicates that the "true" cost of peer review is more than double what most
> of these journals are currently charging as "processing fees".   A decrease
> in the number of peer-reviewed journals in any scientific topic area can
> have fairly disastrous effects on research: almost all research grants
> require publication in peer-reviewed journals.  If the number of journals
> available for consideration of publication is increasingly limited,
> scholars will have an increasingly difficult time publishing and may have
> to pay those "processing fees" to multiple journals before their report is
> accepted.  That's money that's being taken away from the actual science.
> It also increases the motivation to seek out research grants from
> organizations with deep pockets (including those in the private sector),
> and we all know that scientists who accept research grants from Big
> Business tend to be considered "sell-outs".
>
> There's no good answer here.  In an ideal world, there would be lots of
> Open Access journals with low processing fees that would publish good
> peer-reviewed scientific studies regardless of their "popularity".  There's
> a long way to go before this will make fiscal sense.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> |
StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
| WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> |
WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
| WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Tim Starling-2
Tim Starling, 24/09/2012 04:24:
> According to the PDF, each published article costs them 1954 GBP, and
> brings in a revenue of 3256 GBP. A very nice business to be in. They
> already charge the authors a processing fee of 2000 GBP per article,
> so they could break even with open access, without increasing the
> author fee at all. That would be bad for investors, but the company
> would survive. So maybe it's not quite time to dance on Elselvier's grave.

Indeed, this is not really about higher or lower costs and revenues:
it's mainly about a new kind of market and business which Elsevier is
not ready for. Other publishers, like Springer, have been wiser and
experimented a lot with Open Access: not because they are
philanthropists, but to be ready for everything and avoid the risk of
being swept away by history.

emijrp, 24/09/2012 09:08:
 > In the wiki-research mailing list we are talking about Open-Access
journals
 > and new ways to publish and disseminate research results. A summary is
 > available http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas

Thanks. I've asked a question on talk: it's also relevant for this
topic/mailing list if you disagree with my assumption there.

Nemo

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Andrea Zanni-2
In reply to this post by Risker
There are also other kinds of business models:
http://scoap3.org/

The topic is complex, I know
and Open Access is about a shift of an entire system,
is not about Elsevier (which is important but (just) a main actor in a big
play).

Peer review is crucial, of course,
but I wonder who is being paid:
afaik, reviewers are almost never paid for their work (I understaind that
organizing it must be diffuclt and expensive).

Moreover, I think it is is fairly easy to see that there is something wrong
when a system
make the citizen pay 2 times for research (first time paying academics to
do research, second paying journals through libraries to read that
research).
And when academics are the producers, the reviewers and the customers of
the company itself.
Thus, there *must* be a more clever system for research publishing :-)

Aubrey

On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 4:49 AM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 23 September 2012 22:24, Tim Starling <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On 23/09/12 05:24, David Gerard wrote:
> > > It's such a pity that Elsevier's attempt to legally block open access
> > > requirements [1] means that they must be destroyed utterly with not
> > > one stone left upon another and the ground salted. I'm crying real[2]
> > > tears here.
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2012/09/21/how-do-you-recognize-a-catastrophe/
> > >
> >
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/files/2012/09/Berstein-report-on-Elsevier.pdf
> > >
> > > The world's smallest violin is playing the world's quietest tune, at
> > > $39.50 a play for non-subscribers.
> >
> > According to the PDF, each published article costs them 1954 GBP, and
> > brings in a revenue of 3256 GBP. A very nice business to be in. They
> > already charge the authors a processing fee of 2000 GBP per article,
> > so they could break even with open access, without increasing the
> > author fee at all. That would be bad for investors, but the company
> > would survive. So maybe it's not quite time to dance on Elselvier's
> grave.
> >
> >
>
> I tend to agree with Tim Starling that Elselvier (and other for-profit
> journal publishers) still have a place.   The author's processing fee
> (which covers peer review and publication costs) that Elselvier currently
> charges would probably not even cover the cost of peer reviewing; they
> depend on sales to make up the difference. Remember that they bundle the
> less popular journals with the popular ones, to defray those costs across
> several publications.  Thus, the scientist in the little-known field whose
> professional journals are read by hundreds doesn't pay significantly more
> for "processing"  than the scientist whose professional journal is read by
> tens of thousands.
>
> Even open access journals will need to ensure that they charge enough to
> cover the costs of peer review, or their publications will be essentially
> useless:  even Wikipedia expects that sources used to back
> scientific/medical statements be from peer-reviewed journals. That cost
> will have to come from the researcher; the articles that David links to
> indicates that the "true" cost of peer review is more than double what most
> of these journals are currently charging as "processing fees".   A decrease
> in the number of peer-reviewed journals in any scientific topic area can
> have fairly disastrous effects on research: almost all research grants
> require publication in peer-reviewed journals.  If the number of journals
> available for consideration of publication is increasingly limited,
> scholars will have an increasingly difficult time publishing and may have
> to pay those "processing fees" to multiple journals before their report is
> accepted.  That's money that's being taken away from the actual science.
> It also increases the motivation to seek out research grants from
> organizations with deep pockets (including those in the private sector),
> and we all know that scientists who accept research grants from Big
> Business tend to be considered "sell-outs".
>
> There's no good answer here.  In an ideal world, there would be lots of
> Open Access journals with low processing fees that would publish good
> peer-reviewed scientific studies regardless of their "popularity".  There's
> a long way to go before this will make fiscal sense.
>
> Risker/Anne
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Rich Farmbrough
In reply to this post by Risker
On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
> the costs of peer review
I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer
review, so I'm not sure what these costs are.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

David Gerard-2
On 24 September 2012 22:52, Richard Farmbrough <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:

>> the costs of peer review

> I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer review,
> so I'm not sure what these costs are.


Apparently, peer review costs a fortune to organise. i wouldn't think
so from the peer review requests I see in my email (yes, mine ... I
don't even have a completed bachelor's degree), but obviously Elsevier
do it in a manner that runs on gold dust.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

George William Herbert
In reply to this post by Rich Farmbrough
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
>>
>> the costs of peer review
>
> I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer review,
> so I'm not sure what these costs are.

Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
peer reviews.

Peer review logistics is non-trivial - identifying reviewers, ensuring
the reviewers review, on time, and making sure they did their work and
sorting it out if the answer is neither unambiguously yes or no, etc.

I just went through this process on a system administration paper for
the LISA conference this year; their peer reviews were significantly
lower impact (few paragraphs per reviewer) and done with anonymity and
visibility to the author via a web tool.  They still have a couple of
people at HQ handling the logistics of the system and related
paperwork, plus the conference chair, plus the paper's individual
Shepherd (introduced recently).  I think they only pay their HQ staff,
but still non-trivial effort.  Hundreds of dollars a paper, at least,
and much less than other more scientific papers would take (I think).

They're not charging authors or authors' companies/universities, and
the papers are open-access.  They appear to handle it as conference
overhead, and charge for the conferences.

Probably can't do that for most journals, and ads with a conflict of
interest are taken badly...


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

metasj
It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of how
to manage such things with volunteers.

Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced model
where the most esteemed publications are run by students.
On Sep 24, 2012 6:33 PM, "George Herbert" <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
> >>
> >> the costs of peer review
> >
> > I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer
> review,
> > so I'm not sure what these costs are.
>
> Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
> peer reviews.
>
> Peer review logistics is non-trivial - identifying reviewers, ensuring
> the reviewers review, on time, and making sure they did their work and
> sorting it out if the answer is neither unambiguously yes or no, etc.
>
> I just went through this process on a system administration paper for
> the LISA conference this year; their peer reviews were significantly
> lower impact (few paragraphs per reviewer) and done with anonymity and
> visibility to the author via a web tool.  They still have a couple of
> people at HQ handling the logistics of the system and related
> paperwork, plus the conference chair, plus the paper's individual
> Shepherd (introduced recently).  I think they only pay their HQ staff,
> but still non-trivial effort.  Hundreds of dollars a paper, at least,
> and much less than other more scientific papers would take (I think).
>
> They're not charging authors or authors' companies/universities, and
> the papers are open-access.  They appear to handle it as conference
> overhead, and charge for the conferences.
>
> Probably can't do that for most journals, and ads with a conflict of
> interest are taken badly...
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of how
> to manage such things with volunteers.
>
> Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced model
> where the most esteemed publications are run by students.

Another amusing example is The Economist current affairs magazine. I hear their
contributors don't, as a rule, run to grey whiskers and tweed jackets.

--
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Risker
On 24 September 2012 21:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of
> how
> > to manage such things with volunteers.
> >
> > Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced
> model
> > where the most esteemed publications are run by students.
>

Well, perhaps. But their "peer review" is courtrooms, where the decisions
are made publicly and are produced by the justice system free of charge to
the journals.  Otherwise, the articles are written by students with faculty
advisors reviewing their work.  I don't think anyone wants medical studies
to be "peer reviewed" by medical students.



>
> Another amusing example is The Economist current affairs magazine. I hear
> their
> contributors don't, as a rule, run to grey whiskers and tweed jackets.
>
> --
>

You're correct; a lot of them are paid journalists, and the rest are paid
columnists.

Risker/Anne
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

DAEL Dennitts
In reply to this post by metasj



FYI

> Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 20:33:29 -0400
> From: [hidden email]
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier
>
> It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of how
> to manage such things with volunteers.
>
> Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced model
> where the most esteemed publications are run by students.
> On Sep 24, 2012 6:33 PM, "George Herbert" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
> > <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > > On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
> > >>
> > >> the costs of peer review
> > >
> > > I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer
> > review,
> > > so I'm not sure what these costs are.
> >
> > Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
> > peer reviews.
> >
> > Peer review logistics is non-trivial - identifying reviewers, ensuring
> > the reviewers review, on time, and making sure they did their work and
> > sorting it out if the answer is neither unambiguously yes or no, etc.
> >
> > I just went through this process on a system administration paper for
> > the LISA conference this year; their peer reviews were significantly
> > lower impact (few paragraphs per reviewer) and done with anonymity and
> > visibility to the author via a web tool.  They still have a couple of
> > people at HQ handling the logistics of the system and related
> > paperwork, plus the conference chair, plus the paper's individual
> > Shepherd (introduced recently).  I think they only pay their HQ staff,
> > but still non-trivial effort.  Hundreds of dollars a paper, at least,
> > and much less than other more scientific papers would take (I think).
> >
> > They're not charging authors or authors' companies/universities, and
> > the papers are open-access.  They appear to handle it as conference
> > overhead, and charge for the conferences.
> >
> > Probably can't do that for most journals, and ads with a conflict of
> > interest are taken badly...
> >
> >
> > --
> > -george william herbert
> > [hidden email]
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > [hidden email]
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
     
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Kat Walsh-4
In reply to this post by Risker
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 24 September 2012 21:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of
>> how
>> > to manage such things with volunteers.
>> >
>> > Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced
>> model
>> > where the most esteemed publications are run by students.
>>
>
> Well, perhaps. But their "peer review" is courtrooms, where the decisions
> are made publicly and are produced by the justice system free of charge to
> the journals.  Otherwise, the articles are written by students with faculty
> advisors reviewing their work.  I don't think anyone wants medical studies
> to be "peer reviewed" by medical students.

FWIW, I was on a peer-reviewed law journal (there are a few) where
students managed the reviewer-wrangling process, with the occasional
aid and input of an also-unpaid faculty advisor.

-Kat

--
Your donations keep Wikipedia free: https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: [hidden email], [hidden email]
(G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites: mindspillage

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Richard Symonds-3
To be fair, organising academics is probably quite like herding cats. I can
see it being expensive (but not quite as expensive as currently!) I wonder:
would it be possible to make it so that in order to publish a paper, a
person has to review two, three, four others as part of their payment?

Or is that a silly idea?[1]

Richard
[1] It's probably a very silly idea

On 25 September 2012 16:19, Kat Walsh <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Risker <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 24 September 2012 21:20, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <[hidden email]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Samuel Klein <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >> > It's funny, most organizations point to our community as am example of
> >> how
> >> > to manage such things with volunteers.
> >> >
> >> > Another example: law reviews offer an excellent and widely reproduced
> >> model
> >> > where the most esteemed publications are run by students.
> >>
> >
> > Well, perhaps. But their "peer review" is courtrooms, where the decisions
> > are made publicly and are produced by the justice system free of charge
> to
> > the journals.  Otherwise, the articles are written by students with
> faculty
> > advisors reviewing their work.  I don't think anyone wants medical
> studies
> > to be "peer reviewed" by medical students.
>
> FWIW, I was on a peer-reviewed law journal (there are a few) where
> students managed the reviewer-wrangling process, with the occasional
> aid and input of an also-unpaid faculty advisor.
>
> -Kat
>
> --
> Your donations keep Wikipedia free:
> https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
> Web: http://www.mindspillage.org Email: [hidden email],
> [hidden email]
> (G)AIM, Freenode, gchat, identi.ca, twitter, various social sites:
> mindspillage
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

David Gerard-2
On 25 September 2012 16:24, Richard Symonds
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> To be fair, organising academics is probably quite like herding cats. I can
> see it being expensive (but not quite as expensive as currently!) I wonder:
> would it be possible to make it so that in order to publish a paper, a
> person has to review two, three, four others as part of their payment?
> Or is that a silly idea?[1]
> [1] It's probably a very silly idea


It's sort of accepted as the implicit deal: you want your papers
reviewed, you should participate in the reviewing.


- d.

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Mark
In reply to this post by George William Herbert
On 9/25/12 12:32 AM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
>>> the costs of peer review
>> I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer review,
>> so I'm not sure what these costs are.
> Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
> peer reviews.
>

The actual organization of peer reviews generally isn't paid even at
for-profit journals, at least in my field. The editor-in-chief and
editorial board are usually responsible for finding and assigning
reviewers, and then making a decision based on their reviews, and those
aren't paid positions. There are indeed editing/layout costs at some
journals, though it varies widely. In computer science, the costs are
typically lower to nonexistent, because of an expectation that authors
will be able to deliver publication-ready PDFs, using LaTeX and a
template provided by the journal.

The two top journals these days in my field (artificial intelligence)
both run on fairly low budgets, one a rounding error away from $0, and
the other a modest nonprofit:

* http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/ -- donated server space from MIT, and a
completely volunteer editorial process
* http://jair.org/ -- nonprofit organization with a small budget (funded
by donations and grants) pays for server space and a small staff

-Mark


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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

George William Herbert
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Mark <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 9/25/12 12:32 AM, George Herbert wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the costs of peer review
>>>
>>> I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer
>>> review,
>>> so I'm not sure what these costs are.
>>
>> Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
>> peer reviews.
>>
>
> The actual organization of peer reviews generally isn't paid even at
> for-profit journals, at least in my field. The editor-in-chief and editorial
> board are usually responsible for finding and assigning reviewers, and then
> making a decision based on their reviews, and those aren't paid positions.
> There are indeed editing/layout costs at some journals, though it varies
> widely. In computer science, the costs are typically lower to nonexistent,
> because of an expectation that authors will be able to deliver
> publication-ready PDFs, using LaTeX and a template provided by the journal.
>
> The two top journals these days in my field (artificial intelligence) both
> run on fairly low budgets, one a rounding error away from $0, and the other
> a modest nonprofit:
>
> * http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/ -- donated server space from MIT, and a
> completely volunteer editorial process
> * http://jair.org/ -- nonprofit organization with a small budget (funded by
> donations and grants) pays for server space and a small staff
>
> -Mark

Computer Science seems to have taken the lead there, but my
understanding (as an outsider, interested, but not participating much)
is that physical and biological sciences, and most other engineering,
usually pay a staffer and the editor-in-chief, but usually not
reviewers or the editorial board.

I'm sure it's wildly across the map from field to field and
publication to publication, though...

The important part of the discussion is to get on the table that there
are real production EFFORTS involved in all of these journals; it's
not just an email balancing act, a large part of people's work time is
dedicated to coordination and reviewing reviews and finding reviewers
and the like.  Authors are asked to review.  Lots of effort is
happening.

Whether most of that is "free" - supported by institutions or done by
people out of the goodness of their heart (or for prestige) - or paid,
it's happening.

If I'm paying $1,000 a year for a journal I darn well expect that
they're both paying the coordination and production staff and also
exercising not academic interference, but having an organizational
review board to make sure the editor and editorial committee aren't
running off the rails (as has been known to happen in lesser known
journals).


--
-george william herbert
[hidden email]

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

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada
Coordinating people to write encyclopedias was expensive. Well, until 2001.

2012/9/25 George Herbert <[hidden email]>

> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Mark <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 9/25/12 12:32 AM, George Herbert wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM, Richard Farmbrough
> >> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 24/09/2012 03:49, Risker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> the costs of peer review
> >>>
> >>> I have academics complaining to me that they don't get paid for peer
> >>> review,
> >>> so I'm not sure what these costs are.
> >>
> >> Someone has to edit the magazine, pre-accept papers, and handle the
> >> peer reviews.
> >>
> >
> > The actual organization of peer reviews generally isn't paid even at
> > for-profit journals, at least in my field. The editor-in-chief and
> editorial
> > board are usually responsible for finding and assigning reviewers, and
> then
> > making a decision based on their reviews, and those aren't paid
> positions.
> > There are indeed editing/layout costs at some journals, though it varies
> > widely. In computer science, the costs are typically lower to
> nonexistent,
> > because of an expectation that authors will be able to deliver
> > publication-ready PDFs, using LaTeX and a template provided by the
> journal.
> >
> > The two top journals these days in my field (artificial intelligence)
> both
> > run on fairly low budgets, one a rounding error away from $0, and the
> other
> > a modest nonprofit:
> >
> > * http://jmlr.csail.mit.edu/ -- donated server space from MIT, and a
> > completely volunteer editorial process
> > * http://jair.org/ -- nonprofit organization with a small budget
> (funded by
> > donations and grants) pays for server space and a small staff
> >
> > -Mark
>
> Computer Science seems to have taken the lead there, but my
> understanding (as an outsider, interested, but not participating much)
> is that physical and biological sciences, and most other engineering,
> usually pay a staffer and the editor-in-chief, but usually not
> reviewers or the editorial board.
>
> I'm sure it's wildly across the map from field to field and
> publication to publication, though...
>
> The important part of the discussion is to get on the table that there
> are real production EFFORTS involved in all of these journals; it's
> not just an email balancing act, a large part of people's work time is
> dedicated to coordination and reviewing reviews and finding reviewers
> and the like.  Authors are asked to review.  Lots of effort is
> happening.
>
> Whether most of that is "free" - supported by institutions or done by
> people out of the goodness of their heart (or for prestige) - or paid,
> it's happening.
>
> If I'm paying $1,000 a year for a journal I darn well expect that
> they're both paying the coordination and production staff and also
> exercising not academic interference, but having an organizational
> review board to make sure the editor and editorial committee aren't
> running off the rails (as has been known to happen in lesser known
> journals).
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> [hidden email]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>



--
Emilio J. Rodríguez-Posada. E-mail: emijrp AT gmail DOT com
Pre-doctoral student at the University of Cádiz (Spain)
Projects: AVBOT <http://code.google.com/p/avbot/> |
StatMediaWiki<http://statmediawiki.forja.rediris.es>
| WikiEvidens <http://code.google.com/p/wikievidens/> |
WikiPapers<http://wikipapers.referata.com>
| WikiTeam <http://code.google.com/p/wikiteam/>
Personal website: https://sites.google.com/site/emijrp/
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] (semi-OT) Open access "catastrophic" for Elsevier

Andrea Zanni-2
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:08 AM, emijrp <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Coordinating people to write encyclopedias was expensive. Well, until 2001.


I'll have a tshirt with this.

Aubrey
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
12