Perhaps you could explain what you mean here as your comment seems rather a non 
sequitur.

M

-----Original Message-----
From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu 
[mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf Of Karl Fogel
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:30 PM
To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students: Fake, 
pay-to-publish journals & conferences

If we'd all stop using the verb "publish" when we really mean "endorse", much 
conversation on this topic would be clearer.

(Not aimed at anyone here, by the way; just a general observation :-) .)

-Karl

Richard Brooks <r...@acm.org> writes:
>Part of the problem is the use of publications to drive academic 
>"retention, tenure, promotion."
>Publications should be vetted by a set of peers that only allow 
>publication of quality goods. The journals are supposed to be the 
>gate-keepers and enforcers of quality. This means that the people 
>trying to publish have an incentive to publish as much as they can.
>
>Having the authors pay gives the supposed gatekeepers an economic 
>incentive to publish more and lower quality.
>If costs are not paid by the subscribers (who should in principle only 
>pay for quality goods) then it is hard to find a model that is going to 
>keep the bar high enough.
>
>Professional societies (IEEE, ACM, etc.) can probably maintain quality 
>in this scenario.
>But that decreases the number of journals and the amount of available 
>info...
>
>On 04/08/2013 04:19 PM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> I'm wondering whether some global equivalent of the copyright 
>> collection societies 
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_collective might not work 
>> although they would need to be updated to reflect current issues 
>> around CC and related licensing… Richer institutionscould pay in for 
>> access to Open Access journals perhaps on a pay per usage basis and 
>> given a relatively modest cost structure for OA journals this might 
>> be sufficient to cover operating costs on a Robin Hood basis for poorer and 
>> LDC libraries. …just a thought.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> M
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> *From:*liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu
>> [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] *On Behalf Of 
>> *LISTS
>> *Sent:* Monday, April 08, 2013 10:58 AM
>> *To:* liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu
>> *Subject:* Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad students:
>> Fake, pay-to-publish journals & conferences
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Indeed, this would be a problem. However, it's already a problem, 
>> which is to say that poorer universities cannot afford subscriptions 
>> to EBSCO and whatnot to begin with, and thus their faculty have 
>> trouble keeping up with research in comparison to those at richer 
>> schools. What I'm suggesting here could at least alleviate this 
>> problem, because richer schools would subsidize /access/ to research.
>> 
>> Moreover, I'm imagining that the cost of pay-to-publish would be far 
>> lower than for-profit schemes like T&F and Elsevier, thus enabling 
>> poorer school's libraries to save money and actually increase their 
>> faculty's ability to do research (assuming that's their mission).
>> However, I don't have numbers on this, so I could be wrong.
>> 
>> - Rob Gehl
>> 
>> On 04/08/2013 11:52 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote:
>> 
>>     The problem with this is that faculty from wealthier universities will 
>> have much more capability to publish than faculty from less wealthy 
>> universities.  And those who can get their work supported by those with 
>> money have an upper hand of getting more information out than those who do 
>> not have their work supported.  There is already enough of this in grants 
>> perhaps.   Maybe we could envision something like low cost subscriptions so 
>> that individuals or universities could pay a small fee to journals they use 
>> a lot.  This works well on a number of political blogs.
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Michael
>> 
>>     ________________________________________
>> 
>>     From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu> 
>> [liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu>] on behalf of 
>> LISTS [li...@robertwgehl.org <mailto:li...@robertwgehl.org>]
>> 
>>     Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 1:45 PM
>> 
>>     To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu>
>> 
>>     Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad 
>> students: Fake, pay-to-publish journals & conferences
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     Or, potentially, university libraries could shift from buying
>> 
>>     subscriptions to paying for their university faculty's publication fees.
>> 
>>     If the ultimate product is an open access publication, then the 
>> issue
>> 
>>     isn't paying for access, but rather paying to produce the public good.
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     - Rob Gehl
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     On 04/08/2013 11:42 AM, michael gurstein wrote:
>> 
>>         Publishing may be dirt cheap but any systematic/formal e.g. 
>> academic
>> 
>>         publishing isn't free... So the problem is that while there 
>> is a necessary
>> 
>>         and valuable shift from commercial publishing (and outrageous 
>> profiteering)
>> 
>>         to open access online publishing there really aren't any good 
>> business
>> 
>>         models yet to cover the (much less but not totally trivial) 
>> costs of the new
>> 
>>         forms of academic publishing.
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         If for whatever reason (and there are lots including the 
>> issues pointed to
>> 
>>         here) one doesn't want to go to a pay for play model that 
>> leaves
>> 
>>         advertising(???) or donations (???) or...
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         M
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         -----Original Message-----
>> 
>>         From: liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu>
>> 
>>         [mailto:liberationtech-boun...@lists.stanford.edu] On Behalf 
>> Of Richard
>> 
>>         Brooks
>> 
>>         Sent: Monday, April 08, 2013 9:34 AM
>> 
>>         To: liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:liberationtech@lists.stanford.edu>
>> 
>>         Subject: Re: [liberationtech] For everyone and their grad 
>> students: Fake,
>> 
>>         pay-to-publish journals & conferences
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         It's not curious. It is accurate. As the funding model moved 
>> from
>> 
>>         subscribers paying for access to authors paying for 
>> publication, the
>> 
>>         financial incentives changed as well. The loosening of 
>> standards is an
>> 
>>         obvious consequence of this decision.
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         The question of how best to publish quality academic 
>> information is
>> 
>>         non-trivial. Like the question of where to get quality 
>> current affairs
>> 
>>         information. It will take a while for things to adjust to the 
>> ability of the
>> 
>>         Internet to make publishing dirt-cheap.
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         On 04/08/2013 12:19 PM, James Losey wrote:
>> 
>>             I think it's curious how this article frames the journals 
>> as "open
>> 
>>             access" rather than a more appropriate "pay to play"
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Yosem Companys 
>> <compa...@stanford.edu <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu>
>> 
>>             <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>                  From: Nathaniel Poor <natp...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:natp...@gmail.com>
>> 
>>             <mailto:natp...@gmail.com> <mailto:natp...@gmail.com>>
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/for-scientists-an-exploding-
>> w
>> 
>>             orld-of-pseudo-academia.html
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>                  "The scientists who were recruited to appear at a 
>> conference called
>> 
>>                  Entomology-2013 thought they had been selected to 
>> make a presentation
>> 
>>                  to the leading professional association of 
>> scientists who study
>> 
>>                  insects. But they found out the hard way that they were 
>> wrong...."
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>                  This has been a problem for a while, but now it's 
>> big enough to be a
>> 
>>                  newspaper story.
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>                  -------------------------------
>> 
>>                  Nathaniel Poor, Ph.D.
>> 
>>                  http://natpoor.blogspot.com/
>> 
>>                  https://sites.google.com/site/natpoor/
>> 
>>                  --
>> 
>>                  Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or 
>> change password
>> 
>>                  by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu>
>> 
>>                  <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
>> 
>>                  
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>             --
>> 
>>             Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change 
>> password by
>> 
>>             emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> or changing your settings
>> 
>>             at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>>              
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         --
>> 
>>         ===================
>> 
>>         R. R. Brooks
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         Associate Professor
>> 
>>         Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering 
>> Clemson
>> 
>>         University
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         313-C Riggs Hall
>> 
>>         PO Box 340915
>> 
>>         Clemson, SC 29634-0915
>> 
>>         USA
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         Tel.   864-656-0920
>> 
>>         Fax.   864-656-5910
>> 
>>         email: r...@acm.org <mailto:r...@acm.org>
>> 
>>         web:   http://www.clemson.edu/~rrb
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         --
>> 
>>         Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change 
>> password by
>> 
>>         emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> or changing your settings at
>> 
>>         https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>>          
>> 
>>         --
>> 
>>         Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change 
>> password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> or changing your settings at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     --
>> 
>>     Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change 
>> password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> or changing your settings at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>      
>> 
>>     --
>> 
>>     Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change 
>> password by emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu 
>> <mailto:compa...@stanford.edu> or changing your settings at 
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by 
>> emailing moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings 
>> at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>> 
--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

--
Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing 
moderator at compa...@stanford.edu or changing your settings at 
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech

Reply via email to