On Oct 2, 2009, at 1:56 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
I agree strongly with Roger and Nick. The point of doing research is
to advance the field -- among other things by sharing one's results
with others.
Most scientific publishers don't add much value to what they
publish. The reviewing is done by unpaid reviewers.
There are quite a few fully reviewed open publication channels.
Quality is no worse there than in for-profit journals. Look for
example at the PLoS journals. Also, look at JASSS.
Compare the quality of those article with the quality of articles
published in the Journal that started this thread: More mumbo-jumbo
@ emergence.
Furthermore, it is always OK to publish "pre-prints" of journal
articles. These are author-formatted versions of published articles.
Pre-prints allow the contents of articles to be made available
without charge without giving away the formatting "added value"
contributed by the publisher.
The NM-INBRE project (www.nminbre.org), helps new biomedical
researchers in NM universities get started on the road to funding.
While at NCGR, I interviewed professors and students to find out what
their most pressing issues were. One of the most frequent problems
they cited was lack of access to journals such as Cell. Institutional
subscriptions are incredibly expensive, so researchers at universities
with especially inadequate funding often just do without.
And back in the good old days before the internet, didn't publishers
usually send the author a bunch of reprints of the article for the
author to freely distribute? Perhaps once published, the most
appropriate thing is for the author to announce the article as Glen
did, and offer to send a free reprint (electronic these days) to
anyone who offers.
;; Gary
-- Russ A
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Roger Critchlow <[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:07 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[email protected]
> wrote:
Thus spake Steve Smith circa 10/02/2009 07:40 AM:
> But I understand Glen being careful about sending it out to a list
that archives
> such that the paper is effectively been placed in a public
repository.
> [...]
> That said, I hope Glen (and others) *will* freely circulate their
work to their
> colleagues according to their own judgement about what supports
their work (and
> Science in general) vs what undermines it (breaking contracts or
good faith
> understandings?).
Exactly. To be clear, I won't re-publish the article. But I'm
happy to
send a copy directly to any colleague who asks.
This came up, again, this week with a pre-undergraduate researcher,
ie unfunded and unaffiliated, who wanted articles on <subject>. I
searched arxiv.org, plos.org, and google scholar without finding
much on <subject> that wasn't encumbered by a king's ransom in use
fees, however it turned out that <researcher> at <university> had a
web page of publications which linked to pdfs of his publications,
of the publications of all his students, of his out of print book,
dissertations, etc, et anything else that could further the progress
in his field of research.
My recommendation was to google author names to find other online
archives of papers and follow the trail of pdfs.
Life is short, the mean time to expiration of a good ideas even
shorter when starved for companionship, the mean number of readers
of a scientific paper who actually make something out of the
experience is probably less than 1, probably much less than 1.
You can collaborate with the publishers, make your work artificially
scarce, so they can sell it again, and again, and again to those who
can pay. Or you can actively attempt to find a reader who will make
something of your work.
The publisher doesn't care if anyone ever makes anything of your
work, they priced the book or the journal so their business expected
to make a profit the day of publication. That's why the books and
journals are getting more expensive so fast that libraries are
spending so much time figuring out what not to buy, what
subscriptions to cancel, what departments can't defend themselves.
Which is making it all still more expensive for those who continue
to buy. And those online copies aren't priced at what the market
will bear, they're priced to make subscriptions look like a bargain.
If you don't actively promote the availability of your work, of your
discipline, of your ideas online, then who will? Disciplines which
make it possible for a pre-undergraduate to find and to read and to
learn about their ideas online will recruit pre-undergraduates.
Disciplines which abet the publishers in their desire to collect
rents in perpetuity on human knowledge will fare differently.
Which side are you on, boys?
-- rec --
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
