---- Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote: > Honorable Forum: > > It used to be $15, if I recall correctly; it appears they've jacked it up > recently, by 33.333333 percent, if my arithmetic is correct--what does that > reflect, in policy and business terms? Judging by the deafening silence > elicited from previous posts, they are not likely to change their policy of > considering access to be a profit center. It would be interesting to see the > sales figures, but I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell when they're > released.
So far as ESA, ASIH, and SWAN, three organizations I have a fairly close familiarity with, you can get those data from the annual Treasurer's Report, which appears in the Minutes of the Annual Meeting, published on the society web page and in one of the various journals (in ESA's case, _The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America_. But I suspect that the objective is not to derive income from such > sales, but to discourage low-volume readers to the point of forcing then to > "join." After all, once the article is posted, the cost to the organization > is practically zero. But I repeat myself. > > The bottom line remains, is it the goal of the organization creating such > policies to advance and facilitate the understanding of ecology as a > phenomenon, a discipline and a profession, or to retard said understanding > (and support)? > > It is ironic that the tradition of science as a practice was, in the "old" > days prior to the advent of the Internet, to freely share one's work with > all interested parties, not just a selected, connected, well-heeled few, and > to "pay it forward." Access to university libraries used to be pretty > universal, and almost anyone could, at their own expense, travel to a > library, engage with a helpful librarian, browse stacks or order > publications, and work in the library. One made notes, and actually wrote in > a quiet atmosphere conducive to continuity of thought. This can still be > done, but it is inefficient and, if papers must be photocopied from books > and journals, rather costly (but for relatively short papers (Lessee, $20 > divided by $0.10 per page = 200 pages would be the break-even point, no? > What are the normal page limits or average paper lengths for most scientific > papers?) at least, less so than purchasing 24-hour access to a pdf file). One can still do all this, or if one prefers, use a free to any user who walks in the door computer to do his work in a more "modern" manner. I worked at a public university library in this fashion for four hours today. Private universities generally have more restrictions on who uses their services, but they do make them available. They may ask the non university affiliated user to pay a small fee to become a "community user," renewable annually. They may restrict the services that such users may access more than public universities do. mcneely > > One can still email most authors with a "Reprint request" or even send a > snailmail request. But this puts the requestor at a competitive > disadvantage, under those having institutional (free to the individual, but > budget-busting to the taxpayer-supported institution and prohibitive to the > smaller institutions, especially those in poorer areas. > > A comparison of price trends over time and the hard-copy subscription and > individual reprint costs compared to the electronic access fees would be > enlightening. (Social scientists, awake!) Librarians do this kind of work all the time. Check their journals for such papers, or look at Dissertation Abstracts or University Microfilms. > > Ain't it kinda ironic that as the vastly superior economy of the Internet > and computing, etc. have cut publication costs that "publishers" can get > away with gouging-on-steroids with a straight (if evasive) face? > > WT > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jane Shevtsov" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:25 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access > > > >I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article > > published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable? > > And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point > > in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article > > if I was an infrequent reader, but $20? > > > > There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at > > < > > http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/ > >>. > > > > Jane Shevtsov > > > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less > >> charitable: > >> http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** > >> ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&** > >> utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* > >> *Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29>< > >> http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-** > >> ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&** > >> utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+* > >> *Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29> > >> > > >> > >> The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is > >> offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction > >> rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such > >> that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work. > >> Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the > >> option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire. > >> Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially > >> treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, > >> given > >> that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence > >> researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of > >> their rights to the publisher in the process. > >> > >> Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all > >> subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become > >> available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public > >> monies > >> should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is > >> entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public. > >> > >> -m > >> > >> > >> On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote: > >> > >>> Fellow Ecologgers, > >>> > >>> Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the > >>> results > >>> of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an > >>> embargo period? It's available here. > >>> http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/** > >>> ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdf<http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf> > >>> > >>> I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of > >>> the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it > >>> underestimates > >>> ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than > >>> later. > >>> Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers > >>> online, > >>> something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but > >>> how > >>> is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial > >>> statement (the latest available online) may be of interest. > >>> http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/**docs/FS2009.pdf<http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf> > >>> > >>> Thoughts? > >>> > >>> Jane Shevtsov > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> Matt Patterson > >> MSES/MPA 2012 > >> Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs > >> Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change > >> (CIPEC) > >> Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799 > >> Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations > >> <http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.** > >> com <http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com>> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > ------------- > > Jane Shevtsov > > Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia > > co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org > > > > "She has future plans and dreams at night. > > They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'." --Faith Hill, > > "Wild One" > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4132 - Release Date: 01/09/12 > > -- David McNeely
