I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a
work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…
I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about
2000 papers –
so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 😉
Best, BR
*From:*George Sheldrick <gshe...@uni-goettingen.de>
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
*To:* b...@hofkristallamt.org; ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
Dear Bernhard,
I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian
small molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?
Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but
with an efficient team and good connections.
I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E
cited SHELX for their refinement.
Best wishes, George
On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:
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>
<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> *On Behalf Of *Patrick Shaw Stewart
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto: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
--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry
University of Goettingen
Tammannstr. 4
D37077 Goettingen
Germany
Tel: +49 551 3933021 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
