Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[George Sheldrick]

Dear Bernhard,

To conclude our conversation, the person who determined and deposited 
the most small-molecule structures was not a 'poor Russian' but almost 
certainly Prof. Allan White of UWA, Perth with 5372. He died in 2016. I 
don't know how many papers he had to review as a punishment.


Best wishes, George


On 04.07.2018 20:30, Bernhard Rupp wrote:


I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…

I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 
2000 papers –


so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 

Best, BR

*From:*George Sheldrick 
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
*To:* b...@hofkristallamt.org; ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian 
small molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?


Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but 
with an efficient team and good connections.


I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E 
cited SHELX for their refinement.


Best wishes, George

On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with
user data’

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what
can be charitably described

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can
be free (a concept occasionally alien

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that
will be exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent.

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about
review overload is perilous if you

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a
year, on grounds of reciprocity you

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans
holidays…imagine the poor Russian small molecule

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing
a resource (diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of
crystallography, compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the
subterranean dungeons of beam line hell.

.

Best, BR

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the
Cell Press stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days.

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what
happens with your data….

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically
live to collect data?)

“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share
Link – a personalized URL providing *50 days' free access* to your
article. Anyone clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will
be taken directly to the final version of your article on
ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or fees are required –
they can simply click and read”

*From:* CCP4 bulletin board 
<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> *On Behalf Of *Patrick Shaw Stewart
*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial
organization?  They have been criticised for encouraging users to
upload copyrighted material, see below.  Their business model also
seems to involve charging a high fee to spam their users - we
tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists who
happened to get our message.  (Although I agree with you that
10-yr-old articles are less valuable than recent ones.)

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the
journal/Biology Direct/. Reviewers' names and reports are
published along with the article, and it's up to the authors to
amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All you
need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I
believed to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more
colds in winter than summer (later published in /Medical
Hypotheses/).  I was disappointed that I only got one reviewer to
support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that the
format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a
controversial topic.  Link below.

Patrick

__



/ResearchGate /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International
Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers
(STM) sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action
against them for copyright infringement and demanding them to
alter their handling of uploa

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

> there is an error in your computation

 

No, the computation is correct. The model parametrization is oversimplified and

the input data are uncertain. Sort of the climate model of review.

 

Cheers, BR

 

From: Sanishvili, Ruslan  
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2018 02:07
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK; b...@hofkristallamt.org
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

Hi Bernhard,

While I do not disagree with anything you have said,. Your results are based on 
the assumption of a 40-hour work week and one-month vacation in a year.

I don't know about now but back then Russian scientists did not work like that. 
So, the final number of 1.5 ppr/hr realistically would be closer to 1 ppr/hr. 

Cheers,

Nukri

 

Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri), Ph.D.
Macromolecular Crystallographer
GM/CA@APS
X-ray Science Division, ANL
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Lemont, IL 60439

Tel: (630)252-0665
Fax: (630)252-0667
rsanishv...@anl.gov <mailto:rsanishv...@anl.gov> 

 

  _  

From: CCP4 bulletin board mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
> on behalf of Bernhard Rupp mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com> >
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 1:30 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press 

 

I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a 

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…

 

I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 2000 papers 
– 

so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 

 

Best, BR

 

From: George Sheldrick mailto:gshe...@uni-goettingen.de> > 
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
To: b...@hofkristallamt.org <mailto:b...@hofkristallamt.org> ; 
ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?

Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but with an 
efficient team and good connections.

I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited SHELX 
for their refinement.

Best wishes, George

 

On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’ 

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described 

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien 

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent. 

 

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you 

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you 

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule 

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell. 

 

.

 

Best, BR

 

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days. 

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data…. 

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)

 

“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board  <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
 On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

 

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.) 

 

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Sanishvili, Ruslan]

Hi Bernhard,

While I do not disagree with anything you have said, there is an error in your 
computation. Your results are based on the assumption of a 40-hour work week 
and one-month vacation in a year.

I don't know about now but back then Russian scientists did not work like that. 
So, the final number of 1.5 ppr/hr realistically would be closer to 1 ppr/hr.

Cheers,

Nukri


Ruslan Sanishvili (Nukri), Ph.D.
Macromolecular Crystallographer
GM/CA@APS
X-ray Science Division, ANL
9700 S. Cass Ave.
Lemont, IL 60439

Tel: (630)252-0665
Fax: (630)252-0667
rsanishv...@anl.gov




From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of Bernhard Rupp 

Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 1:30 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press


I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…



I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 2000 papers 
–

so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 



Best, BR



From: George Sheldrick 
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
To: b...@hofkristallamt.org; ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press



Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?

Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but with an 
efficient team and good connections.

I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited SHELX 
for their refinement.

Best wishes, George



On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent.



In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell.



.



Best, BR



PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days.

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data….

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)



“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”



From: CCP4 bulletin board <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press





Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.)



An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All 
you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed 
to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only 
got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that 
the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial 
topic.  Link below.



Patrick



__


ResearchGate   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical,

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

I was just fascinated by the math: 800 x 3 = 2400, and given a 

work year of 1600 hrs this makes for 1.5 papers per hr to review…

 

I don’t remember a reference to anyone specific - YS had only about 2000 papers 
– 

so maybe there are/were even more prolific candidates 

 

Best, BR

 

From: George Sheldrick  
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 16:17
To: b...@hofkristallamt.org; ccp4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?

Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but with an 
efficient team and good connections.

I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited SHELX 
for their refinement.

Best wishes, George

 

On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’ 

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described 

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien 

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent. 

 

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you 

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you 

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule 

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell. 

 

.

 

Best, BR

 

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days. 

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data…. 

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)

 

“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board  <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
 On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

 

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.) 

 

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All 
you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed 
to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only 
got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that 
the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial 
topic.  Link below.

 

Patrick

 

__



ResearchGate   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to 
ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement 
and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded articles to include 
pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for 
ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted articles and the 
modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. It would 
also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published 
journal article content and the creation of internal databases of 
articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an announcement that takedown 
requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating 
to millions of art

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[George Sheldrick]

Dear Bernhard,

I agree with you sentiments, but was wondering which 'poor Russian small 
molecule crystallographer' you had in mind?


Yuri Strutchkov died in 1995. He was an excellent crystallographer but 
with an efficient team and good connections.


I can't really complain, all the fake Chinese structures in Acta E cited 
SHELX for their refinement.


Best wishes, George


On 04.07.2018 13:54, Bernhard Rupp wrote:


Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with 
user data’


facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can 
be charitably described


as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be 
free (a concept occasionally alien


to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will 
be exploited as a business model.


That is fine as long as the model is transparent.

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about 
review overload is perilous if you


expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a 
year, on grounds of reciprocity you


should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans 
holidays…imagine the poor Russian small molecule


crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a 
resource (diffractometer etc…).


So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of 
crystallography, compliment of the synchrotron


facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean 
dungeons of beam line hell.


.

Best, BR

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell 
Press stuff can be shared


through links for 50 days.

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens 
with your data….


(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to 
collect data?)


“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link 
– a personalized URL providing *50 days' free access* to your article. 
Anyone clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken 
directly to the final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No 
sign up, registration or fees are required – they can simply click and 
read”


*From:* CCP4 bulletin board  *On Behalf Of 
*Patrick Shaw Stewart

*Sent:* Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
*To:* CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
*Subject:* Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial 
organization?  They have been criticised for encouraging users to 
upload copyrighted material, see below.  Their business model also 
seems to involve charging a high fee to spam their users - we tried it 
once but decided we were just annoying the scientists who happened to 
get our message.  (Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old articles 
are less valuable than recent ones.)


An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal/Biology 
Direct/. Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the 
article, and it's up to the authors to amend their article if they 
agree with any criticisms.  All you need is three reports for 
publication  I sent the journal what I believed to be a 
ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in /Medical Hypotheses/).  I was disappointed 
that I only got one reviewer to support my article by writing a 
report.  But I felt that the format of the journal would have been be 
very helpful for a controversial topic.  Link below.


Patrick

__



/ResearchGate /https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International
Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM)
sent a letter to ResearchGate threatening legal action against
them for copyright infringement and demanding them to alter their
handling of uploaded articles to include pre-release checking for
copyright violations and "Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end
its extraction of content from hosted articles and the
modification of any hosted content, including any and all
metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying
and downloading of published journal article content and the
creation of internal databases of articles."[40][41][42] This was
followed by an announcement that takedown requests are to be
issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating to
millions of articles.


/Biology DIrect/:

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works

/My Article : ) /

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X
  (or ask me for PDF)



/Criticism of Elsevier pricing. 
/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing


In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company
for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals
(with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription pric

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

Yes, there is a problem in general with these ‘get rich quick with user data’ 

facebookoid sites. Publon seems to be another one and I had what can be 
charitably described 

as a pretty intense exchange with the dude running it. Nothing can be free (a 
concept occasionally alien 

to the purist academic) and you just pay with whatever data that will be 
exploited as a business model.

That is fine as long as the model is transparent. 

 

In response to an earlier post in this thread, complaining about review 
overload is perilous if you 

expect to get your own stuff reviewed. If you publish 10 papers a year, on 
grounds of reciprocity you 

should expect to review about 30. Almost one a week sans holidays…imagine the 
poor Russian small molecule 

crystallographers on 800 papers a year…nothing beats monopolizing a resource 
(diffractometer etc…).

So, millennials, be thankful for the democratization of crystallography, 
compliment of the synchrotron

facilities and their diligent operators confined to the subterranean dungeons 
of beam line hell. 

 

.

 

Best, BR

 

PS: Ad Elsevier: In an apparent acute attack of generosity, the Cell Press 
stuff can be shared

through links for 50 days. 

https://authors.elsevier.com/a/1XK9D3SNvbqr-6

I am responsible only for pushing the content, not for what happens with your 
data…. 

(at a second thought, don’t crystallographers also practically live to collect 
data?)

 

“To help you access and share this work, we have created a Share Link – a 
personalized URL providing 50 days' free access to your article. Anyone 
clicking on this link before August 22, 2018 will be taken directly to the 
final version of your article on ScienceDirect. No sign up, registration or 
fees are required – they can simply click and read”

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Patrick Shaw 
Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, July 4, 2018 12:59
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

 

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?  They 
have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted material, see 
below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a high fee to spam 
their users - we tried it once but decided we were just annoying the scientists 
who happened to get our message.(Although I agree with you that 10-yr-old 
articles are less valuable than recent ones.) 

 

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal Biology Direct.  
Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the article, and it's up 
to the authors to amend their article if they agree with any criticisms.  All 
you need is three reports for publication  I sent the journal what I believed 
to be a ground-breaking review explaining why we get more colds in winter than 
summer (later published in Medical Hypotheses).  I was disappointed that I only 
got one reviewer to support my article by writing a report.  But I felt that 
the format of the journal would have been be very helpful for a controversial 
topic.  Link below.

 

Patrick

 

__



ResearchGate   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of 
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to 
ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright infringement 
and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded articles to include 
pre-release checking for copyright violations and "Specifically, [for 
ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from hosted articles and the 
modification of any hosted content, including any and all metadata. It would 
also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying and downloading of published 
journal article content and the creation of internal databases of 
articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an announcement that takedown 
requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for copyright infringement relating 
to millions of articles.

 

 


Biology DIrect:   

 

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works

 

 

 

My Article : )   

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X(or ask 
me for PDF)

 



Criticism of Elsevier pricing.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing

 

In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company for its 
journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than 5,000 
articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above average,[23] 
and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier 
annually.[24] The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch 
to the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose library 
budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices.

For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out 
Elsevier's journals as being "dis

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Patrick Shaw Stewart]

Bernhard, did you know that Researchgate is a controversial organization?
They have been criticised for encouraging users to upload copyrighted
material, see below.  Their business model also seems to involve charging a
high fee to spam their users - we tried it once but decided we were just
annoying the scientists who happened to get our message.(Although I
agree with you that 10-yr-old articles are less valuable than recent ones.)

An interesting model for scientific publishing is the journal* Biology
Direct*.  Reviewers' names and reports are published along with the
article, and it's up to the authors to amend their article if they agree
with any criticisms.  All you need is three reports for publication  I sent
the journal what I believed to be a ground-breaking review explaining why
we get more colds in winter than summer (later published in *Medical
Hypotheses*).  I was disappointed that I only got one reviewer to support
my article by writing a report.  But I felt that the format of the journal
would have been be very helpful for a controversial topic.  Link below.

Patrick

__


*ResearchGate   *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ResearchGate#Criticisms

In September 2017, lawyers representing the International Association of
Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) sent a letter to
ResearchGate threatening legal action against them for copyright
infringement and demanding them to alter their handling of uploaded
articles to include pre-release checking for copyright violations and
"Specifically, [for ResearchGate to] end its extraction of content from
hosted articles and the modification of any hosted content, including any
and all metadata. It would also mean an end to Researchgate's own copying
and downloading of published journal article content and the creation of
internal databases of articles."[40][41][42] This was followed by an
announcement that takedown requests are to be issued to ResearchGate for
copyright infringement relating to millions of articles.




*Biology DIrect*:

https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/about/how-it-works




*My Article : )   *

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030698771500417X(or
ask me for PDF)




*Criticism of Elsevier pricing.   *
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing


In the 21st century, the subscription rates charged by the company for its
journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than
5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above
average,[23] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds
to Elsevier annually.[24] The company has been criticized not only by
advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but also by
universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford
current journal prices.

For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out
Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive compared to
their educational and research value", which librarians should consider
dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not tocontribute articles or
editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals that engage in
exploitive or exorbitant pricing".[25] Similar guidelines and criticism of
Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of
California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[26]In July 2015, the
Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a plan to
start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any Open Access
 policy for Dutch universities.
[27]  In December 2016,
 Nature Publishing Group
reported that
academics in Germany, Peru and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier
journals as negotiations had broken down with the publisher.[28]


A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the Competition and Markets
Authority .
[29] 









On 2 July 2018 at 08:01, George Sheldrick  wrote:

> Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have no
> access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive profits, for
> some years I have not submitted papers to them and have declined all
> requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they might reconsider
> their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a more reasonably
> priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple credit for innovation.
>
> George
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:
>
>
> I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the
> profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit
> margins are like those of Apple, and of competition there is 

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Eugene Osipov]

AI researchers are boycotting Nature journals:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/why-are-ai-researchers-boycotting-new-nature-journal-and-shunning-others
May be there is something we can in our field?

2018-07-02 10:01 GMT+03:00 George Sheldrick :

> Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have no
> access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive profits, for
> some years I have not submitted papers to them and have declined all
> requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they might reconsider
> their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a more reasonably
> priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple credit for innovation.
>
> George
>
>
>
> On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:
>
>
> I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the
> profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit
> margins are like those of Apple, and of competition there is none.
>
>
> Elsevier: Like Apple, but without the design sense.
>
>
> But seriously, Adrian makes an excellent point. And the large profit
> margins wouldn’t be quite so galling, if only the publishers were able to
> provide competent and helpful administrative support; but in my recent
> experience, not-for-profit scientific society journals are actually
> providing better experiences for reviewers and authors than the big
> commercial ones.
>
> Pat
>
> 
> ---
>
> Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.
>
> Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
>
> Drexel University College of Medicine
>
> Room 10-102 New College Building
>
> 245 N. 15th St
> .,
> Mailstop 497
>
> Philadelphia, PA  19102-1192  USA
>
>
> (215) 762-7706
>
> pjl...@gmail.com
>
> pj...@drexel.edu
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>
>
>
> --
> Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
> Dept. Structural Chemistry,
> University of Goettingen,
> Tammannstr. 4,
> D37077 Goettingen, Germany
> Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or +49-5594-227312
>
>
> --
>
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>



-- 
Eugene Osipov
Junior Research Scientist
Laboratory of Enzyme Engineering
Research Center of Biotechnology
Russian Academy of Sciences
Leninsky pr. 33, 119071 Moscow, Russia
e-mail: e.m.osi...@gmail.com



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[George Sheldrick]

Since neither I nor my university can afford Elsevier journals, I have 
no access to papers published in them. In view of their excessive 
profits, for some years I have not submitted papers to them and have 
declined all requests to referee for them. If everyone did that, they 
might reconsider their approach. I am not an Apple fan either - I use a 
more reasonably priced native Linux laptop - but have to give Apple 
credit for innovation.


George


On 07/01/2018 06:57 PM, Patrick Loll wrote:


I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where 
the profit is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as 
their profit margins are like those of Apple, and of competition 
there is none.


Elsevier: Like Apple, but without the design sense.


But seriously, Adrian makes an excellent point. And the large profit 
margins wouldn’t be quite so galling, if only the publishers were able 
to provide competent and helpful administrative support; but in my 
recent experience, not-for-profit scientific society journals are 
actually providing better experiences for reviewers and authors than 
the big commercial ones.


Pat

---

Patrick J. Loll, Ph. D.

Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology

Drexel University College of Medicine

Room 10-102 New College Building

245 N. 15th St., Mailstop 497

Philadelphia, PA19102-1192USA


(215) 762-7706

pjl...@gmail.com 

pj...@drexel.edu 





To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1 






--
Prof. George M. Sheldrick FRS
Dept. Structural Chemistry,
University of Goettingen,
Tammannstr. 4,
D37077 Goettingen, Germany
Tel. +49-551-39-33021 or +49-5594-227312




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Robbie Joosten]

There is a way to get some credit for reviewing, which is a good step: 
https://publons.com/home/



You can link it to your ORCID.



Cheers,

Robbie





Sent from my Windows 10 phone




From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of 
graeme.win...@diamond.ac.uk 
Sent: Sunday, July 1, 2018 7:13:44 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Jacob,

This is a known thing in other circles - see e.g.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6590

"Extending ArXiv.org<http://ArXiv.org> to Achieve Open Peer Review and 
Publishing

Axel Boldt
(Submitted on 23 Nov 2010)
Today's peer review process for scientific articles is unnecessarily opaque and 
offers few incentives to referees. Likewise, the publishing process is 
unnecessarily inefficient and its results are only rarely made freely available 
to the public. Here we outline a comparatively simple extension of 
arXiv.org<http://arXiv.org>, an online preprint archive widely used in the 
mathematical and physical sciences, that addresses both of these problems. 
Under the proposal, editors invite referees to write public and signed reviews 
to be attached to the posted preprints, and then elevate selected articles to 
"published" status.”

Also:

http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/04/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv/

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprints-speed-science-journals

(different things)

I think the idea here is that people want to trust the manuscript - having it 
in Acta Cryst D (or whatever else) does give some measure of provenance. I 
suspect we could achieve the same with an open peer review process but it would 
be non-trivial, especially for most of the stuff which ends up in Nature… 
though this does not make it wrong, just hard.

Cheerio Graeme

On 1 Jul 2018, at 04:17, Keller, Jacob 
mailto:kell...@janelia.hhmi.org>> wrote:

I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply the 
outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward in a 
very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the system is 
terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these is, believe it 
or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a huge amount of 
work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of people with the 
expertise and experience required for this type of work is exceedingly small. 
Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more than 2 hours of 
work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking about 2 h, but 
not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing houses are 
making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they can get very 
cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of work for free. It 
is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists go along with it. To 
put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; why not do something 
about it? I am sure that the journals will not be overjoyed to release their 
grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
Jon
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already.
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Goldman, Adrian]

I personally don’t think paying reviewers is a necessary solution, though it 
would be nice- for us. The result would just be an increase in journal costs. 

I think what we should do is not publish in journal families where the profit 
is above 10 per cent. Elsevier is the place to start as their profit margins 
are like those of Apple, and of competition there is none. 

Adrian 

Sent from my iPhone

> On 1 Jul 2018, at 05:18, Keller, Jacob  wrote:
> 
> I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply 
> the outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward 
> in a very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the 
> system is terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these 
> is, believe it or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a 
> huge amount of work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of 
> people with the expertise and experience required for this type of work is 
> exceedingly small. Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more 
> than 2 hours of work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking 
> about 2 h, but not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing 
> houses are making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they 
> can get very cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of 
> work for free. It is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists 
> go along with it. To put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; 
> why not do something about it? I am sure that the journals will not be 
> overjoyed to release their grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.
> 
> JPK
> 
> +
> Jacob Pearson Keller
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
> Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
> Cell: (301)592-7004
> +
> 
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
> specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
> message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
> received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow 
> with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the 
> future.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
> Jon
> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
> reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
> price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
> bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
> online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
> reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
> problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
> solution to that one?
> one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
> get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already. 
> best,
> jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von 
> Keller, Jacob
> Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look 
> at publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I 
> actually think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until 
> reviewers get paid.
> 
> JPK
> 
> +
> Jacob Pearson Keller
> Research Scientist / Looger Lab
> HHMI Janelia Research Campus
> 19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
> Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
> Cell: (301)592-7004
> +
> 
> The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
> specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
> message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
> received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow 
> with its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the 
> future.
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[graeme.win...@diamond.ac.uk]

Jacob,

This is a known thing in other circles - see e.g.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.6590

"Extending ArXiv.org<http://ArXiv.org> to Achieve Open Peer Review and 
Publishing

Axel Boldt
(Submitted on 23 Nov 2010)
Today's peer review process for scientific articles is unnecessarily opaque and 
offers few incentives to referees. Likewise, the publishing process is 
unnecessarily inefficient and its results are only rarely made freely available 
to the public. Here we outline a comparatively simple extension of 
arXiv.org<http://arXiv.org>, an online preprint archive widely used in the 
mathematical and physical sciences, that addresses both of these problems. 
Under the proposal, editors invite referees to write public and signed reviews 
to be attached to the posted preprints, and then elevate selected articles to 
"published" status.”

Also:

http://blog.scienceopen.com/2016/04/what-if-you-could-peer-review-the-arxiv/

And:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprints-speed-science-journals

(different things)

I think the idea here is that people want to trust the manuscript - having it 
in Acta Cryst D (or whatever else) does give some measure of provenance. I 
suspect we could achieve the same with an open peer review process but it would 
be non-trivial, especially for most of the stuff which ends up in Nature… 
though this does not make it wrong, just hard.

Cheerio Graeme

On 1 Jul 2018, at 04:17, Keller, Jacob 
mailto:kell...@janelia.hhmi.org>> wrote:

I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply the 
outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward in a 
very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the system is 
terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these is, believe it 
or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a huge amount of 
work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of people with the 
expertise and experience required for this type of work is exceedingly small. 
Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more than 2 hours of 
work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking about 2 h, but 
not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing houses are 
making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they can get very 
cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of work for free. It 
is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists go along with it. To 
put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; why not do something 
about it? I am sure that the journals will not be overjoyed to release their 
grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
Jon
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already.
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

++

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Keller, Jacob]

I don't fully understand the cynicism in the response, unless it is simply the 
outpouring from years of painstaking review work for no monetary reward in a 
very broken publication system. Everybody I have talked to thinks the system is 
terrible, and various solutions have been proposed. One of these is, believe it 
or not, what I suggested, which is to pay reviewers. It is a huge amount of 
work, if one has a conscience about it, and the number of people with the 
expertise and experience required for this type of work is exceedingly small. 
Further, a real review of a paper takes significantly more than 2 hours of 
work, depending on the type of paper (I think you were joking about 2 h, but 
not totally sure). What really kills me is that the publishing houses are 
making money hand over fist, and this because they know that they can get very 
cooperative scientists (G-d bless them) to do huge amounts of work for free. It 
is really scandalous, and I am not sure why we scientists go along with it. To 
put it bluntly: we are being exploited by the journals; why not do something 
about it? I am sure that the journals will not be overjoyed to release their 
grip on the profits, but that should not stop us.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Hughes, 
Jon
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 6:13 AM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already. 
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we 

[ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Hughes, Jon]

...that some papers get waived through isn't all that uncommon already, 
especially with Nature.
j

Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Vellieux 
Frédéric
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 12:23
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

"how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a solution to that 
one?"
Simple: Once all of us have reviewed enough papers (with the money placed in a 
common pot) we simply buy the Nature Publishing Group. All those having taken 
part get a Nature paper every 4 years to ensure grant money continues to flow 
in.
F.

From: CCP4 bulletin board mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>> 
on behalf of Hughes, Jon 
mailto:jon.hug...@bot3.bio.uni-giessen.de>>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 12:12:50 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already.
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime.

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon 
> mailto:jon.hug...@bot3.bio.uni-giessen.de>>
>  wrote:
>
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von
> Robbie Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK<mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
>
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online
> collection, a hub of some sort ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Robbie

[ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Hughes, Jon]

sorry about the typing error. 2 x 200 = 400, i know.
j

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Hughes, 
Jon
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 12:13
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already. 
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von 
> Robbie Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
> 
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online 
> collection, a hub of some sort ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robbie
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
>> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
>> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers 
>

Re: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Vellieux Frédéric]

"how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a solution to that 
one?"

Simple: Once all of us have reviewed enough papers (with the money placed in a 
common pot) we simply buy the Nature Publishing Group. All those having taken 
part get a Nature paper every 4 years to ensure grant money continues to flow 
in.

F.

From: CCP4 bulletin board  on behalf of Hughes, Jon 

Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2018 12:12:50 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already.
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime.

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
>
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von
> Robbie Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
>
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online
> collection, a hub of some sort ;)
>
> Cheers,
> Robbie
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>>
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>>
>>
>>
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>>
>>
>>

[ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Hughes, Jon]

great idea! 2 hours at €200 per hour makes €1000 - sounds like an eminently 
reasonable starting point for negotiations. if the publishers don't like our 
price, they can do the reviewing themselves - and after a while no one will 
bother to buy the resulting rubbish anyhow! in the mean time we put our stuff 
online directly (without wasting our time, for example, still formatting 
reference lists in the 21st century!). we have them over a barrel. the only 
problem i see is how to get grants without papers in Nature. anyone have a 
solution to that one?
one final aspect is: who gets the money? surely the universities etc. should 
get it, not us: the taxpayer pays us already. 
best,
jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Keller, 
Jacob
Gesendet: Samstag, 30. Juni 2018 00:00
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von 
> Robbie Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
> 
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online 
> collection, a hub of some sort ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robbie
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
>> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
>> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers 
>> that are readily available from the publisher. The whole business bit 
>> in scientific publishing is a necessary (?) evil, but I guess if 
>> given the choice one should publish somewhere where you as an author retain 
>> copyright.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>&g

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Keller, Jacob]

The one I don't get is why not pay reviewers? $1000 per review? If you look at 
publishers' profit margins, you will see that they can afford it. I actually 
think the scientific community should go on a "review strike" until reviewers 
get paid.

JPK

+
Jacob Pearson Keller
Research Scientist / Looger Lab
HHMI Janelia Research Campus
19700 Helix Dr, Ashburn, VA 20147
Desk: (571)209-4000 x3159
Cell: (301)592-7004
+

The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient 
specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this 
message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender. If you 
received this message by mistake, please reply to this message and follow with 
its deletion, so that we can ensure such a mistake does not occur in the future.

-Original Message-
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Petr 
Leiman
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 4:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von 
> Robbie Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
> 
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online 
> collection, a hub of some sort ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robbie
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
>> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
>> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers 
>> that are readily available from the publisher. The whole business bit 
>> in scientific publishing is a necessary (?) evil, but I guess if 
>> given the choice one should publish somewhere where you as an author retain 
>> copyright.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Robbie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Fellows,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
>> 
>> enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
>> 
>> from ResearchGate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Fortunately, authors have choices, too
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers, BR
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> 
>> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
>> 
>> b...@hofkristallamt.org
>> 
>> +1 925 209 7429
>> 
&g

Re: [ccp4bb] [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Petr Leiman]

Indeed! Scientists in the Soviet Bloc got paid for publishing their scientific 
papers (and maybe for citations as well - not sure about that one)! We need to 
change the current system! Although these changes could be accompanied by many 
other pleasant virtues of the Soviet regime. 

Petr


> On Jun 29, 2018, at 8:11 AM, Hughes, Jon  
> wrote:
> 
> whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we 
> even pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're 
> not actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
> well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
> etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for 
> the time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per 
> hour would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few 
> lines to their balance sheets
> best, jon
> 
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Robbie 
> Joosten
> Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
> An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
> ;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
> leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
> necessarily well-validated.
> 
> Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
> ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online collection, a hub 
> of some sort ;)
> 
> Cheers,
> Robbie 
> 
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
>> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
>> Joosten
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
>> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
>> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers that 
>> are readily available from the publisher. The whole business bit in 
>> scientific publishing is a necessary (?) evil, but I guess if given 
>> the choice one should publish somewhere where you as an author retain 
>> copyright.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> Robbie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
>> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>> Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Fellows,
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
>> 
>> enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
>> 
>> from ResearchGate.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Fortunately, authors have choices, too
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers, BR
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Bernhard Rupp
>> 
>> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
>> 
>> b...@hofkristallamt.org
>> 
>> +1 925 209 7429
>> 
>> +43 676 571 0536
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> Many plausible ideas vanish
>> 
>> at the presence of thought
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
>> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

[ccp4bb] AW: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Hughes, Jon]

whose paper? our universities pay subscriptions for these journals and we even 
pay on top of that for the pages of our publications (even when they're not 
actually printed!), whilst we review papers for free! sounds like a 
well-validated way to use taxpayers' money to keep the expensive company cars 
etc. nice and shiny. why don't universities just require reimbursement for the 
time we invest to insure that the merchandise is up to standard? €100 per hour 
would be cheap. seems to me as though some capitalists need to add a few lines 
to their balance sheets
best, jon

-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] Im Auftrag von Robbie 
Joosten
Gesendet: Freitag, 29. Juni 2018 13:42
An: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Betreff: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
necessarily well-validated.

Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online collection, a hub 
of some sort ;)

Cheers,
Robbie 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
> 
> 
> 
> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie 
> Joosten
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> 
> 
> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too 
> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the 
> ResearchGate is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers that 
> are readily available from the publisher. The whole business bit in 
> scientific publishing is a necessary (?) evil, but I guess if given 
> the choice one should publish somewhere where you as an author retain 
> copyright.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Robbie
> 
> 
> 
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of 
> Bernhard Rupp
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Fellows,
> 
> 
> 
> just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
> 
> enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
> 
> from ResearchGate.
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, authors have choices, too
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, BR
> 
> --
> 
> Bernhard Rupp
> 
> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
> 
> b...@hofkristallamt.org
> 
> +1 925 209 7429
> 
> +43 676 571 0536
> 
> --
> 
> Many plausible ideas vanish
> 
> at the presence of thought
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Robbie Joosten]

Yes, but think of all the money they miss due to your pirating of their paper 
;) It's the typical discussion about whether piracy of copyrighted material 
leads to loss or gain of revenue. There are a lot of models here, but not 
necessarily well-validated.

Anyway, if people want to read your papers and cannot get them from 
ResearchGate, I'm sure they can find them on another online collection, a hub 
of some sort ;)

Cheers,
Robbie 

> -Original Message-
> From: Bernhard Rupp [mailto:hofkristall...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 13:23
> To: 'Robbie Joosten'; CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: RE: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill
> 
> 
> 
> From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie
> Joosten
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> 
> 
> Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too
> aggressive (IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the ResearchGate
> is rather aggressive in bugging you to upload papers that are readily 
> available
> from the publisher. The whole business bit in scientific publishing is a
> necessary (?) evil, but I guess if given the choice one should publish
> somewhere where you as an author retain copyright.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Robbie
> 
> 
> 
> From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
> Bernhard Rupp
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
> To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Fellows,
> 
> 
> 
> just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
> 
> enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
> 
> from ResearchGate.
> 
> 
> 
> Fortunately, authors have choices, too
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers, BR
> 
> --
> 
> Bernhard Rupp
> 
> http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
> 
> b...@hofkristallamt.org
> 
> +1 925 209 7429
> 
> +43 676 571 0536
> 
> --
> 
> Many plausible ideas vanish
> 
> at the presence of thought
> 
> --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

Agreed, but for 10 years old papers this seems a bit of overkill..

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board  On Behalf Of Robbie
Joosten
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 12:11
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too aggressive
(IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the ResearchGate is rather
aggressive in bugging you to upload papers that are readily available from
the publisher. The whole business bit in scientific publishing is a
necessary (?) evil, but I guess if given the choice one should publish
somewhere where you as an author retain copyright.

 

Cheers,

Robbie 

 

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of
Bernhard Rupp
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK <mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK> 
Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

 

Hi Fellows,

 

just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in

enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers

from ResearchGate.

 

Fortunately, authors have choices, too..

 

Cheers, BR

--

Bernhard Rupp

http://www.hofkristallamt.org/

b...@hofkristallamt.org <mailto:b...@hofkristallamt.org> 

+1 925 209 7429

+43 676 571 0536

--

Many plausible ideas vanish 

at the presence of thought

--

 

 

  _  

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1> =1 

 

  _  

To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB
<https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1> =1 




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

Re: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Robbie Joosten]

Were they open access papers? If they were, than OUP is being too aggressive 
(IMO), but otherwise it makes sense. I also find the ResearchGate is rather 
aggressive in bugging you to upload papers that are readily available from the 
publisher. The whole business bit in scientific publishing is a necessary (?) 
evil, but I guess if given the choice one should publish somewhere where you as 
an author retain copyright.

Cheers,
Robbie

From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Bernhard 
Rupp
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 11:42
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: [ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

Hi Fellows,

just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in
enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers
from ResearchGate.

Fortunately, authors have choices, too

Cheers, BR
--
Bernhard Rupp
http://www.hofkristallamt.org/
b...@hofkristallamt.org<mailto:b...@hofkristallamt.org>
+1 925 209 7429
+43 676 571 0536
--
Many plausible ideas vanish
at the presence of thought
--




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1



To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1

[ccp4bb] Oxford University Press

[Bernhard Rupp]

Hi Fellows,

 

just an advisory that Oxford University Press is pretty aggressive in

enforcing copyright - I had to remove 2 Bioinformatics papers

from ResearchGate.

 

Fortunately, authors have choices, too..

 

Cheers, BR

--

Bernhard Rupp

http://www.hofkristallamt.org/

b...@hofkristallamt.org  

+1 925 209 7429

+43 676 571 0536

--

Many plausible ideas vanish 

at the presence of thought

--

 




To unsubscribe from the CCP4BB list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CCP4BB=1