Dear Alan--and others-- First, I am the moderator who has passed the two additional messages on this topic--which I think is relevant.
Second, to Alan, if all you want to see in a blog is the peer-reviewed work, then perhaps just read the literature as there is not really a need for a blog and associated discussions. Yes, there needs to be some filtering and urging of Third, I agree with Albert that there are a lot of people who do not have access to university libraries and all of the associated journals, so that is one problem, and the idea of having to pay $35 for 48 hours access to an article sponsored by the US Government (as was the case for the LLNL report--my former employer) just strikes me as in appropriate. I can understand the need for journal costs to be paid, but to make it so hard for those without access to the journals is really keeping out and failing to communicate with the public. There is the option of buying open access for the authors, which seems to me the preferred route for those with sponsored research support, especially on what are mainly review articles. The idea is to communicate widely, not just to an in group of those in the field. Fourth, while it may be that one could write to each author for a copy of the article, if this is the case, then why not just post it along with the message, or include a link to the article on your personal Website (where you, Alan, and a few others have been very good at posting your articles). This would seem to be far less hassle than having a number of people write the author each time an article comes out. Fifth, I just don't think this is an irrelevant issue to discuss given our need to communicate with the public about this issue and not give the impression of doing things behind closed doors. And I actually think this is also an issue that extends far outside our domain--the understanding of science generally is unfortunately pretty limited, and we should be making all the articles and reports available as widely as possible--something the US National Research Council has recently decided to do (their printed reports cost money, their pdfs do not). So, my two cents. Mike On 6/22/12 8:30 PM, "Alan Robock" <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu> wrote: > Dear Andrew, > > Absolutely not! In fact, I think we should ban all the drivel that is > not peer-reviewed. > > Published papers are not closed to anyone with an academic library or a > subscription. While some journals are open access, such as ACP, others > like Science, Nature, JGR, and Journal of Climate are not. Someone has > to pay for publishing, and none of these, with the possible exception of > Nature, are for profit. They are published by AAAS, AGU, and AMS, which > are professional societies. And every author will be happy to send > reprints to anyone who asks, so there is really no hindrance to anyone > reading any peer-reviewed published paper. > > So I reject your assertion that open access is necessarily better than > journals for which someone has to pay. And I reject your attempt to > turn this list into just opinions and not the distribution of quality > research. And the only standard for quality is peer review. Peer > review is imperfect, but it is better than any alternative. > > > Alan > > Alan Robock, Professor II (Distinguished Professor) > Editor, Reviews of Geophysics > Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program > Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction > Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-732-932-9800 x6222 > Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 > 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu > New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock > > On 6/22/2012 7:02 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> Dear Members, >> >> A question: Should we ban members sending their own papers to the >> list if these papers are not open access, or file-attached? >> >> To allow this practice to continue seems like we're offering tacit >> support for closed access publication of geoengineering research. I >> note both the growing open-access movement, and the particular >> sensitivities around any perceived secrecy in geoengineering research. >> >> Furthermore, in practical terms, posted closed-access research is not >> available for non-academic list members, of which there are many. >> This clearly hinders subsequent list discussion of attached papers. >> >> I'd be very interested to hear members' views on this matter. >> >> Thanks for your time. >> >> A >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "geoengineering" group. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
