I'd like to publicly commend Stephen Buranyi for this article. He spent a *lot*of time on it, and spent a whole day with me getting a historical and current perspective. Originally I think he hoped to give pointers for the future, but the story (rightly) mutated itself into Maxwell , which is exactly where it should be. Not enough people realise that it was effectively Maxwell who has corrupted the scholarly publishing system and this is an excellent and timely reminder of the initial causes.
P. On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Donald Samulack - Editage < donald.samul...@editage.com> wrote: > I ask that the industry consider whether or not SciHub activities could > possibly be the work of one individual residing in Russia, or whether there > is something more malicious taking place instead. > > > > I am not a conspiracy theorist, but it makes sense to me (and I have not > heard any serious argument otherwise) in light of recent Russian attempts > to alter the course of the US election (and others), that if Russia > *really* wanted to get into the computers of every research lab and > academic institution around the world, there would be no better way to do > it than to give away free research articles. Please think about this… a > cover for a phishing exercise targeting every atomic energy facility, > WHO-sponsored lab, CDC facilities, government and state labs around the > world, leading academic institutions housing the world’s cutting edge > intellectual property, etc. > > > > The computing and article collating power that this single person would > need to have at her disposal to be able to have the IP change every 10 > minutes (as I understand it), archive and mirror the collections, etc. may > not be the resources and activities of a single person. We need to consider > this possibility in this new world we live in, and also consider the > consequences of not taking steps to shut down such potentially corrupt > intent, if in fact such intent is ongoing. > > > > Donald Samulack > > (Speaking as a concerned citizen) > > > > > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *On > Behalf Of *Heather Morrison > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 27, 2017 1:08 PM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) > *Subject:* Re: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of > scientific publishing bad for science? > > > > Indeed, great article. Building on this, a reflection: whatever one thinks > of the ethics and legality of Elsevier's lawsuit against SciHub > founder Alexandra Elbakyan, it appears to me that she has demonstrated that > a Kazhakstani graduate student can provide the bulk of the important > services contributed by Elsevier (hosting and serving up articles) at no > cost to users, and apparently off the side of her desk. If this is correct, > this says something about the real necessary marginal cost for providing > this service, i.e. almost nothing. > > > > Considering that academics do the real work of academic publishing - > writing and peer review - if the traditional value add of publishers in > storing and disseminating articles, necessary in the print and early > electronic ages, can now be done for next to nothing, surely we can devise > a new system that retains or strengthens quality at a fraction of the cost? > > > > best, > > > > -- > Dr. Heather Morrison > Associate Professor > École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies > University of Ottawa > > Desmarais 111-02 > > 613-562-5800 ext. 7634 <(613)%20562-5800> > > Sustaining the Knowledge Commons: Open Access Scholarship > > http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ > http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > > > On 2017-06-27, at 11:38 AM, "Reckling, Falk" <falk.reckl...@fwf.ac.at> > > wrote: > > > > Indeed Eric, astonishingbackground story, almost all what you have to know > about the publishing industry and very well written, > > > > Best Falk > > > > Von: Éric Archambault<mailto:eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com > <eric.archamba...@science-metrix.com>> > Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26 > An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)<mailto:goal@eprints.org > <goal@eprints.org>> > Betreff: [GOAL] Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific > publishing bad for science? > > > > Interesting article in the Guardian that spells out the role played by > Robert Maxwell in the development of the scholarly journal industry. > > Éric > > > Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for > science? > https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business- > scientific-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other > > > Eric Archambault > 1science.com > Science-Metrix.com > +1-514-495-6505 x111 <(514)%20495-6505> > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
