Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with
user data’
facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can
be charitably described
as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be
free (a concept occasionally alien
to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will
be exploited as a business model.
That is fine as long as the model is transparent.
In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about
review overload is perilous if you
expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a
year, on grounds of reciprocity you
should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans
holidays…imagine the poor Russian small molecule
crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a
resource (diffractometer etc…).
So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of
crystallography, compliment of the synchrotron
facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean
dungeons of beam line hell.
</digress>.
Best, BR
PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell
Press stuff can be shared
through links for 50 days.
https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6
I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens
with your data….
(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to
collect data?)
“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link
– a personalized URL providing *50 days' free access* to your article.
Anyone clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken
directly to the final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No
sign up, registration or fees are required – they can simply click and
read”
*From:* CCP4 bulletin board <CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> *On Behalf Of
*Patrick Shaw Stewart
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial
organization? They have been criticised for encouraging users to
upload copyrighted material, see below. Their business model also
seems to involve charging a high fee to spam their users - we tried it
once but decided we were just annoying the scientists who happened to
get our message. (Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old articles
are less valuable than recent ones.)
An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal/Biology
Direct/. Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the
article, and it's up to the authors to amend their article if they
agree with any criticisms. All you need is three reports for
publication I sent the journal what I believed to be a
ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than
summer (later published in /Medical Hypotheses/). I was disappointed
that I only got one reviewer to support my article by writing a
report. But I felt that the format of the journal would have been be
very helpful for a controversial topic. Link below.
Patrick
______________
/ResearchGate /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms
In September 2017, lawyers representing the International
Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM)
sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action against
them for copyright infringement and demanding them to alter their
handling of uploaded articles to include pre-release checking for
copyright violations and "Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end
its extraction of content from hosted articles and the
modification of any hosted content, including any and all
metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying
and downloading of published journal article content and the
creation of internal databases of articles."[40][41][42] This was
followed by an announcement that takedown requests are to be
issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating to
millions of articles.
/Biology DIrect/:
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works
/My Article : ) /
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X
(or ask me for PDF)
/Criticism of Elsevier pricing.
/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing
In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company
for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals
(with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high
as £9,634, far above average,[23] and many British universities
pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.[24] The
company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch to
the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose
library budgets make it difficult for them to afford current
journal prices.
For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled
out Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive
compared to their educational and research value", which
librarians should consider dropping, and encouraged its faculty
"not tocontribute articles or editorial or review efforts to
publishers and journals that engage in exploitive or exorbitant
pricing".[25] Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's
pricing policies have been passed by the University of California,
Harvard University, and Duke University.[26]In July 2015, the
Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a
plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on
any Open Access <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Access> policy
for Dutch universities.^[27]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-27> In December
2016, Nature Publishing Group
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group>reported
that academics in Germany, Peru and Taiwan are to lose access to
Elsevier journals as negotiations had broken down with the
publisher.^[28] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-28>
A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the Competition and
Markets Authority
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition_and_Markets_Authority>.^[29]
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#cite_note-29>
On 2 July 2018 at 08:01, George Sheldrick <gshe...@uni-goettingen.de
<mailto:gshe...@uni-goettingen.de>> wrote:
Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I
have no access to papers published in them. In view of their
excessive profits, for some years I have not submitted papers to
them and have declined all requests to referee for them. If
everyone did that, they might reconsider their approach. I am not
an Apple fan either - I use a more reasonably priced native Linux
laptop - but have to give Apple credit for innovation.
George
On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:
I think what we should do is not publish in journal
families where the profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier
is the place to start as their profit margins are like
those of Apple, and of competition there is none.
Elsevier: Like Apple, but without the design sense.
But seriously, Adrian makes an excellent point. And the large
profit margins wouldn’t be quite so galling, if only the
publishers were able to provide competent and helpful
administrative support; but in my recent experience,
not-for-profit scientific society journals are actually
providing better experiences for reviewers and authors than
the big commercial ones.
Pat
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Drexel University College of Medicine
Room 10-102 New College Building
245 N. 15th St
<https://maps.google.com/?q=245+N.+15th+St&entry=gmail&source=g>.,
Mailstop 497
Philadelphia, PA19102-1192USA
(215) 762-7706
pjl...@gmail.com <mailto:pjl...@gmail.com>
pj...@drexel.edu <mailto:pj...@drexel.edu>
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or +49-5594-227312
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
--
patr...@douglas.co.uk <mailto:patr...@douglas.co.uk> Douglas
Instruments Ltd.
Douglas House, East Garston, Hungerford, Berkshire, RG17 7HD, UK
Directors: Peter Baldock, Patrick Shaw Stewart
http://www.douglas.co.uk
Tel: 44 (0) 148-864-9090 US toll-free 1-877-225-2034
Regd. England 2177994, VAT Reg. GB 480 7371 36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB&A=1
