Luke and Ecolog: Thanks for the link!
Are there any ethical issues about the practice of jobbing-out journals to for-profit entities and taking a cut for the organization? Or do organizations get anything besides a few copies of the publication for their contracts? Certainly, though, no officers of scholarly organizations would personally or professionally benefit from such "cooperation" would they? I simply do not know, and would like to be reassured that there are no issues there.
From Bergstrom and Bergstrom (Front Ecol Environ 2006; 4(9): 488-495) at thelink ( http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publications/BergstromAndBergstrom06.pdf ) available in their 2001 paper linked by Butler: ". . . from the broader community perspective, the scientific community as a whole would benefit if overpriced journals were displaced by journals priced at or near average cost. The fraction of library budgets that is currently going to the shareholders of large commercial publishers could instead be used to provide services of genuine value to the academic community. Professional societies and university presses could help by expanding their existing journals or starting new ones. Individual scholars could advance this process in many ways: by contributing their time and efforts to the expansion of these non-profit journals, by refusing to do unpaid referee work for overpriced commercial publications, by self-archiving their papers in preprint archives or institutional repositories, and by favoring reasonably priced journals with their submissions."
It appears to be simple and direct advice for a step in the right direction. Both of their papers (2001, 2006) contain interesting details that are shocking but not surprising. The citation data are particularly interesting. But this and a central micropayment system or institutional generosity still won't get Dr. Voltolini and unconnected researchers and the curious "public" the kind of access they once had through libraries in the paper-journal days. It took time, but it was a more level playing field. People felt good when they generously mailed off a copy (even Thermofax [R]) of a paper now and then. And before that, it was the journals or nothing. Apparently, progress is trying to take that full circle. What would some obscure clerk in some patent office do now, take out his quill pen and scratch a note to Steinmetz?
I seem to recall some relatively recent publicity regarding the quality of much of the research itself in some of the "top" (heavy?) journals that might place its/their credibility into question. Does this sound familiar; if so, can anyone provide citations/links?
Why didn't we hear about Bergstrom and Bergstrom's papers via the world media? Aren't reporters getting tipped off (phone calls, not just press-releases, please), or did the latest gossip on some teen-star's drug habit eclipse the item? Were it not for Butler and Ecolog, I wouldn't have known about their studies.
It appears that "publish or perish" is alive and well, hustling. No wonder, given the pressure on tenure-seekers. What a tangled web!
WT Today the libraries, tomorrow the readers? Hard-headed business analysis:Do the for-profit publishers use pricing theory in setting their charges? Were the publications not profitable enough before pdf files, or were the latter seen as a golden goose landing in their laps? With all their resources, couldn't they read the pixels on the screen and find a way to maybe even greater profitability through increased actual quality and wider consumption of their product? Certainly they have the distinct advantage of momentum/reputation, which it would be a shame to squander, no? Even if there was a time-limited system for scanning before purchase at a reasonable rate (mimicking what one used to do in a library), the unit sales might be high enough to eventually increase profits, especially if the publishers took it upon themselves to generate a broader readership. A phenomenon to which the publishers have not yet awakened is that of a wage-earner pursuing an extra-institutional road to greater knowledge. Universities like MIT, for example, recognize that it takes little or nothing to make educational materials available to anyone with an Internet connection, which, by "lifting all boats," ensures longevity and respect in spades. Why not take the high road instead of putting obstacles in the path of learning? At long last, can the world society afford to do otherwise? The "top" journals would then gain well-deserved respect--and profits too. Better than a mass Exodus.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Luke K. Butler" <luke.but...@tufts.edu>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 6:58 PMSubject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Approval required
Carl Bergstrom and Theodore Bergstrom have produced an incredible website about the economics of journal publishing, including speculation about the future of open access journals. http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/publishing/publishing.html ******************************** Luke K. Butler Post-Doctoral Associate Department of Biology Tufts University 165 Packard Ave Medford, MA 02155 ph: 617.627.4036 fax: 617.627.3805 ******************************** On May 11, 2009, at 2:26 PM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:Strictly speaking, you're correct. However, the purpose of copyright law is to reward people who do creative work. That would be us. The journal's contribution is coordinating peer review, formatting the paper and, most importantly, disseminating the paper. For this, they get paid by subscribers and sometimes page charges. That seems more than fair -- really, the for-profit journals should be paying us, the way magazines pay writers. Allowing them to dictate what we can do with our work after publication seems rather excessive! As a practical matter, are there any cases of scientists being sued or prosecuted for posting their publications on their websites? Anyone interested in these issues should read Lawrence Lessig and John Perry Barlow, particularly the latter's essay "The Economy of Ideas: Selling Wine Without Bottles on the Global Net". Jane Shevtsov On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Gavin Simpson <gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 11:14 -0400, Alexey Voinov wrote:Instead of or in addition to boycotting and protesting, I think there is a much simpler and effective solution. Ask your kids. If they can share their music, why can't we share our papers? It's called peer-to-peer technology and requires just a little bit of good will from ourselves. All we need is to assemble our collections of pdf articles that I bet each and everyone of us has on our hard disks, and make them available for sharing. Students are already doing this. See this article: http://eaves.ca/2009/04/28/education-where-copyrighters-and- publishers-are-the-pirates/ Unfortunately these efforts seem to be sharing the fate of Napster, attacked by lawsuits. However this can and will still develop without any centralized services on a peer-to-peer basis as supported by bit-torrent and other software. So it's really up to us to make it happen.Only if you condone copyright theft. Invariably, journals do not grant you a non-exclusive right to do anything with your own publications that you might have in PDF format. Sometimes they allow you to post to a website your final version before journal formatting. Sometimes a journal may allow you to do this only after a certain period of time, or they may allow you to post their version of the manuscript on your (or your institutes's) website after a period of time (6-12months say). It all depends upon what rights you signed away when you completed your copyright transfer form. Reproducing or distributing any publications that are not your own, that are not covered by a licence that allows you to do this, provided to you by the publisher of said content, would also constitute copyright theft. Circumventing these restrictions, could, in some countries, be considered violation of copyright laws. Doing this with software in the US for example cold make you fall foul of the DMCA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA Whilst I'm no fan of the current predominant publication model, nor many of the associated citation indices, rampant disregard for copyright law is *not* the way to solve these problems. You should exercise your right to do with your work (i.e. your final draft, not a journal compilation/formatting of your work) as you see fit, and publish it in journals that have more open policies regarding works published by them. Or try to retain some of the rights you wish for, for example by attaching a Creative Commons Scholars Copyright Addendum to the publisher's copyright transfer forms, in an attempt to negotiate retaining some rights: http://sciencecommons.org/projects/publishing/So it's really up to us to make it happen.So, I agree with the sentiment, but not with the means by which you suggest we go about it. G-- Alexey Voinov ____________________________________________________________________ _ !!!**** please note new e-mail address: aavoi...@gmail.com ****!!! ____________________________________________________________________ _ Chesapeake Research Consortium Community Modeling Program & Johns Hopkins University Dept. of Geography and Environm. Engineering 645 Contees Wharf Road, P.O. Box 28, Edgewater, MD 21037 TEL: 410 798-1283; 703 880-1178 WWW: http:// www.likbez.com/AV Fellow, Gund Institute for Ecological Economics,University of Vermont President,Int.Envir.Modeling. and Software Soc.,http:// www.iemss.org/ New book: Systems Science and Modeling for Ecological Economics http://books.elsevier.com/companions/9780123725837------------------------------ Date: Sat, 9 May 2009 16:56:12 -0700 From: Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> Subject: Re: Open Access and Intellectual Imperialism Approval required Re: [ECOLOG-L] Teaching Biostatistics !!! (Suggested replacement post) Ecolog: "In my university I do not have access to literature sources like = Biological Abstracts for example to reach the authors and articles . . = ." This is an excellent example, unfortunately, of how pricing = intellectual resources out of range for "outsiders" is a moral = indictment of much of academia. This man--or any man or woman or child = (especially) should never have to hit a university firewall, be required = to pay tens of dollars ($30, $40, and more) to download a pdf file, ad = nauseam. Think of the burdensome expense and effort required on the part = of so many even to gain the privilege of Internet access in the first = place!=20 Those truly concerned about the future of the earth and its life, even = civilization, should realize that the history of intellectual = development is one of free exchange of ideas and information, not its = conversion into profit centers. It is not the struggling who should pay = the comfortable, it is the comfortable who benefit from free = intellectual synergy that compounds like a breeder-reactor, who should = pay forward and backwards to ensure rather than obstruct such exchange.=20 At long last, hath academia no sense of decency? Are there no = institutions out there sufficiently well endowed and clearly = beneficiaries of the wealth of intellectual struggle handed down from =people like Dr. Voltolini throughout history (and still do-- Copernicus, =Darwin . . .) who will turn this embarrassing state of arrogant = possessiveness around? Can you imagine having to make this kind of request at every stage of = your own process of intellectual enquiry?=20 How is it possible that, this many years into one of the most = transformational achievements of human society, that Dr. Voltolini = should still be barred from journal access that costs zero to provide?=20 Why not, at the individual level, that academics simply boycott = journals which charge for access and publish in open access journals? = While these may not be perfect at the moment, might not such a = second-stage transformation accelerate their development and foster = rather than retard intellectual synergy?=20 WT PS: David has suggested that I explain "how journals (e.g. those of = the Ecological Society) are supposed to pay to publish papers if nobody = has to pay to read them." This email is intended to illuminate the = problem and hear from others before deigning to suggest how all of the = complexities of this issue should be resolved. The first step, of = course, is in recognizing the problem or refuting the assertion that = there is a problem. I do not pretend, in as brief an email as possible = and still state my position unequivocally, to cover every aspect of the = subject. I do, however, know of institutions that have cancelled journal = subscriptions. I believe that very large institutions (e.g. the = University of California Library may have negotiated price reductions = from some journals; I am not up-to-date on this case, but the UC Library = did raise the issue quite vigorously a few years ago.=20 I will offer the following observations, and invite correction if they = are in error. I hope this helps=20 1. The major "clay paper" journals are VERY profitable.=20 2. Publishing in such journals is a political balancing act, not to = mention that author charges are often involved. (I am not against = reasonable author charges if they do not inhibit publication on the = basis of merit and are collected on the basis of the ability to pay by, = and the benefit to, sponsoring institutions.) 3. It is impossibly expensive for independent researchers or those = whose affiliations do not subscribe to Internet journal service to scan = great volumes of literature. Abstracts are wholly inadequate for = literature "review." 4. I recognize that publication costs must be met, but = scientific/scholarly/intellectual publications should be financed by the = "nobility," not enrich them. Peer reviews should be the obligation of = the reviewers to the discipline involved.=20 5. I suggested a boycott, but only intend that measure for those = entities looking at pdf downloads (for example) as ways to embellish = their bottom-lines, particularly when they gouge for them (charge out of = proportion to their actual marginal cost). Since intellectual articles = are in relatively scant demand, they are not likely to be priced = according to pricing theory anyway, so the benefiting institutions = should pay the actual costs--plus a margin for a cushion- endowment = perhaps.=20 6. I do not think David or anyone else should have to be bothered with = sending materials to requestors who are deprived of equal = privileges/rights. While this is generous in the extreme, there is still = a faint sniff of (unintended) patronizing in that, and the requestor = must be driven to make the request in the first place. Most simply = suffer in silence.=20 7. My primary question to Ecolog remains "Is this intellectual = imperialism or not?"=20 8. One who is "in" simply cannot know what it is like to be "out."=20 ----- Original Message -----=20 From: "VOLTOLINI" <jcvol...@uol.com.br> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:17 PM Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Teaching Biostatistics !!! > Dear friends,=20 >=20 > I am teaching Ecology and Biostatistics and I am working on = different ideas to teach data analyses for Biology students.=20 >=20 > Now, my students will measure several moluscan shells from polluted = and not polluted marine sites (it is a simulation!) and if they read = about the subject they will be more interested in the analysis! Do you = have articles about the "effect of pollution on shell size" ?=20 >=20 > In my university I do not have access to literature sources like = Biological Abstracts for example to reach the authors and articles and = thats why I requesting some articles.=20 >=20 > Thanks for any help!!! >=20 > Voltolini >=20 >=20 >=20 > Prof. Dr. J. C. VOLTOLINI > Grupo de Estudos em Ecologia de Mamiferos (ECOMAM)=20 > UNITAU, Depto. Biologia, Taubate, SP. 12030-010.=20 > Grupo de pesquisa ECOMAM: http://jcvoltol.sites.uol.com.br/=20 > Fotos de projetos e cursos: http:// jcvoltol.fotoblog.uol.com.br/=20 > Exemplo de um curso de ecologia de campo: = http://trabiju.blogspot.com/=20 > Fotos artisticas: http://voltolini.fotos.net.br/texturas=20 ------------------------------------------ %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~% Dr. Gavin Simpson [t] +44 (0)20 7679 0522 ECRC, UCL Geography, [f] +44 (0)20 7679 0565 Pearson Building, [e] gavin.simpsonATNOSPAMucl.ac.uk Gower Street, London [w] http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucfagls/ UK. WC1E 6BT. [w] http://www.freshwaters.org.uk %~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%~%-- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.comVersion: 8.0.320 / Virus Database: 270.12.24/2108 - Release Date: 05/11/09 05:52:00
