Seems to me that the Russian thing is a(nother) manifestation of the need to
deal with the broader issues. As the article implied, scientific publishing is
a unique, peculiar, process. Over the years it has moved from a societal
activity, supported by professional participants, for their professional needs,
to an economic activity, progressively owned by fewer and fewer participants.
This concentration, supported by massive changes in the technological
environment, has, inevitably, led to various circumventions, mostly technically
illegal.
Despite strong movements to replace the processes by more equitable means of
information dissemination, the legal basis is unchanged. An individual who
wishes to have their results well distributed can make a choice. That choice
has consequences.
There it lies, we may try to change the law, an unlikely international
procedure. We can defy the law, leading to inevitable prosecution, if the
commercial processes are affected. Or, we can live with what we have.
For me, the last option is the best we can expect.
On June 27, 2017 7:12:18 PM GMT+01:00, 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 worlds 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
>
>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>
>Gesendet: Dienstag, 27. Juni 2017 09:26
>An: Global Open Access List (Successor of
>AmSci)<mailto: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-scientif
>ic-publishing-bad-for-science?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
>
>
>Eric Archambault
>1science.com
>Science-Metrix.com
>+1-514-495-6505 x111
>
>_______________________________________________
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
GOAL mailing list
GOAL@eprints.org
http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
