Thanks Jon, On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 8:54 AM Jon Tennant <jon.tennan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi list-dwellers, > > With apologies for any cross-posting. > > My latest piece is out in Times Higher Education > <https://www.facebook.com/timeshighereducation/?__tn__=%2CdK-R-R&eid=ARBapf88MHoy7JL4dws2B2ad9qfZTBxyJ2oOCEoHstbXHGWK_vM5g0X8-46NoDB2uejDdSmzGiVdBZBk&fref=mentions> > today. It's something I've been wanting to write for a while now. > How do I read this? the URL is https://www.facebook.com/timeshighereducation/?__tn__=%2CdK-R-R&eid=ARBapf88MHoy7JL4dws2B2ad9qfZTBxyJ2oOCEoHstbXHGWK_vM5g0X8-46NoDB2uejDdSmzGiVdBZBk&fref=mentions I do not use Facebook because I regard it as effectively unregulated and untrustworthy. Many scholarly publishers fall into this category - I believe that scholarly publishing is the most unregulated industry of all. (I assume that they capture readers data and use it for whatever purposes they like - that is one of the several reasons I don't use their APIs. I put Elsevier, Springer-Nature, Wiley, T+F, ACS and many more in this category. To convince me otherwise they have to show independent verification of their systems. (GDPR does not sufficiently hack it). > Every year, we waste billions of euros of taxpayers money on inefficient > systems with outrageous profit margins. When we KNOW there are more > sustainable, non-profit, and more effective solutions out there. > > The current model of scholarly publishing contains a disastrous blend of > Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance. Researchers are helplessly > locked into the system because of an over-reliance on journal brands for > their evaluations, including for promotion, grants and tenure. As such, we > are forced to continue to support the notion that where we publish is more > important than what we publish – despite all having been told as children > not to judge a book by its cover. I find it absurd that the most supposedly > intellectual people in the world cannot find an evaluation system better > than this. > I regard much scholarly publishing as effectively neo-colonialist , where the rich North foists a publishing model on the Global South. (e.g. slides https://www.slideshare.net/petermurrayrust/young-people-in-an-age-of-knowledge-neocolonialism ). I reiterated this yesterday when interviewed by https://www.researchresearch.com/news/ on the launch of India's indiarxiv (due later today). I am quoted as: >> *Traditional big-name publishers may hold cachet for authors, [PMR] said, but they often exacerbate problems of underrepresentation in the Global South. “Commercial publishers give Northern authors glory at the price of dividing the world and making it difficult for people in the Global South to either read or publish,” he said. * *[PMR] called the initiative a “tremendous opportunity” for India to change science communication “so that it doesn’t bake in injustice and it represents a much fairer way of disseminating scientific information”.* *>>* Any thoughts or feedback on this would be deeply appreciated. I am on the editorial board of two publishers. I am deeply unhappy with the way that the Editorial Boards have been treated and actively thinking about what to do next. Publisher 1. I wrote many mails that I wanted discussed at the EB meeting. The meeting was a shambles. Only people who could attend a very expensive conference (at their own expense) were able to go. I asked for items to be put on the agenda (including non-Northern authors) and for minutes. Neither happened and the issue was not discussed. My best guess is it was a cosy chat rater than a proper meeting. Publisher 2. I wrote about global inequality. They wrote back essentially "we don't give waivers because our publishing is high quality" also Publisher 3. Asked me to join their editorial board on a chemistry journal (because it had Nobel laureates as editors). I wrote to the editor (whom I know). No response. I tweeted . No response. It is clear that I am being treated as a mindless commodity (all they want is my name on the masthead). Publisher 4. Asked me to review. I wrote back raising the question of access charges for Global South authors. Long delay and then they couldn't answer the question. Disclaimer. I don't need an impact factor. I am proud of my non-paper contributions to scholarship (e.g. a million downloads of software - and much more). I think the system needs massive disruption (not tweaking) which can come from: * Global South (e.g. Ameli_CA) * preprints with post-review which largely accomplish everything that "publication" does (I qualify this in certain cases, e.g. medical regulatory) * Early Career Researchers like Jon who are brave enough to challenge the system. * no charge journals run by volunteers (e.g. J. Machine Learning Research, J Open Source Software). Effective publication (dissemination, review, feedback, e-distribution, re-use, registration, archival) can be done for < 10 USD. There is no excuse for journals that charge hundreds or many thousands for publication. -- Peter Murray-Rust Founder ContentMine.org and Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics Dept. Of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
