Dear All,
Yes, I support open access for all research already paid for by public
funds. Many journals make papers free after a year or two, but many
still require a subscription. I know AMS and AGU are trying to decide
how to maintain their business model if open access is required. They
say they don't know how ACP (the EGU journal) does it, as their page
charges are similar to AMS and AGU.
In the meantime, what do we do? Do we break the rules and distribute
papers that we can access through our personal subscriptions or our
university or government access?
Alan
On 8/4/2018 6:01 PM, Charles Greene wrote:
How about a single-payer system? The Library of Congress subscribes to
all of the journals and makes them freely available online to all
tax-paying citizens. Your password is issued to you when your federal
income taxes are filed! Just like single-payer healthcare, this would
enable the government to negotiate reasonable subscription rates,
especially with regard to predatory, for-profit publishing houses. The
federal government is already paying for most of the publishing
expenses in its research grants to scientists and its indirect costs
paid to universities. Open-access journals are a step in the right
direction; however, they are far from an ideal solution to the problem
of making science more accessible to the taxpayers supporting it.
Other countries could negotiate their own deals with the publishing
houses, or just imagine if countries actually worked together to
negotiate fair journal subscription rates...
On Aug 4, 2018, at 2:20 PM, Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net
<mailto:mmacc...@comcast.net>> wrote:
I'd just add on behalf of openness that much of the research is
already being paid for by the taxpayer and that those in the public,
especially on issues that are of significant public concern and
interest, argue that they should have free access to the results and
not have to pay further. Given the scientific community is seeking to
inform the public and continue to want research funds from taxpayers,
its hiding of the results behind ridiculously priced paywalls is
really an obstruction (the journals really need to greatly lower
their prices for reprints and I'd venture they'd get more
participation). And as Ron notes there are all sorts of journals and
if everyone has to pay for everything, they'd be broke--and it would
be very inefficient to be getting so much in really wanting access to
so few articles of real interest to those focused on looking at
specific topics.
I'd be interested to know how much journals actually take in based on
their very high paywall rates, and where that money is coming from
(probably mainly from overhead put on the research money awarded to
scientists--are many members of the public actually paying the quite
high rates?). In my view, if the scientific community wants ongoing
support, then there needs to be another way found than high paywall
rates that inhibit the public actually getting to read the articles
instead of just seeing the possible media coverage of the articles.
Indeed, as Alan notes, most editors and reviewers work for free, so a
good question is where all the money is going, especially with
articles mostly now being provided to journals online. Across the
community there are discussions on such issues, even on quite remote
subjects--for things related to climate change science to be behind
paywalls I just do not think is the optimal approach and alternatives
need to be found.
Mike
On 8/4/18 2:39 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Alan:
I agree with all you wrote - but I think it great also that we have
more papers all the time that are NOT behind a paywall. I am not
taking this personally - and am glad you responded below.
I have been a AAAS member for possibly 40 years and I get great
value from that annual expenditure for *Science*. I also this year
found a sweet deal for two subcategories of *Nature. * And I receive
a dozen other magazines - a few where I am a life member, and a
surprising number that are free. I don't subscribe to AMS and AGU
because too little there that fits my background.
But in my small part of Geoengineering (biochar), I could be reading
four or five articles a day from perhaps up to 100 different
journals - maybe only one a month from AMS, AGU, and AAAS re
biochar. No way anyone working in biochar can cover all that (the
IBI website has started showing the 10-20% of unlocked papers every
month - which I find helpful - and tend to read).
Re "/Why are there so many complaints about "paywalls?" "/ I make
a point of mentioning paywalls only because it is such a joy when
someone has found a free-to-me way to help get their message out -
and I presume readers find that useful as well. Finding a long
version in a thesis always pleases me - and they are mostly free.
Re "/Who do you expect to pay for the publication of scientific
papers?" / - I agree with everything you say about the need for
someone to pay. In many cases, that should be the group that paid
for the research to be performed. That leaves many who can't - in
particular in this case the University of Alberta. So delighted
they have a library.
I repeat that this particular thesis looks quite well done, and
presume the paper will also demonstrate that. I repeat that I agree
with all you wrote below.
Ron
On Aug 4, 2018, at 11:44 AM, Alan Robock <rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
<mailto:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu>> wrote:
Dear Ron,
Don't take this personally, but your email was a tipping point for
me, and I have to respond. Why are there so many complaints about
"paywalls?" Who do you expect to pay for the publication of
scientific papers? The American Meteorological Society, American
Geophysical Union, and American Association for the Advancement of
Science are non-profits. Part of the cost of publication is paid
by authors, and reviewers and most editors work for free. If you
want them to give you the papers for free, the authors will have to
pay even more. If you want the papers, join the AMS, AGU, and
AAAS, and support our science. Pay for subscriptions to the
journals. I have been a member of all three for my entire career.
Alan
Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
Rutgers University E-mail:rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu
14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA
☮http://twitter.com/AlanRobock 2017 Nobel Peace Prize to ICAN!
Watch my 18 min TEDx talk athttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54
On 8/4/2018 1:24 PM, Ronal W. Larson wrote:
Andrew and list:
Thanks for the lead.
Believing that arctic ice loss is our best global indicator of how
fast we are heading to ever more serious climate problems, I've
tried to follow Arctic melting for the last 10-12 years (I just
learned that 2018 is lagging other years overall, but is in first
place for the central Arctic basin - the most important). So,
disappointed that this paper is behind a pay wall, I found by
Googling that the paper is probably the result of this 2016
Master's thesis (his second Master's), downloadable at
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/7669/Mueller_Bennit_MSc_2016.pdf?sequence=1
Possibly more here than in the paper. I have only skimmed the
thesis, but believe Mr. Mueller has described a new useful
methodology. He has pulled a lot of new information out of some
pretty sketchy actual data and huge amounts of modeled data.
So, I hope that climate modelers will pay attention to this
thesis as a way to improve their models.
Ron
On Aug 4, 2018, at 7:35 AM, Andrew Lockley
<andrew.lock...@gmail.com <mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:
<snip; off topic>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.