Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 103, Issue 5
I dont publish in journals anymore unless there's a co-author who needs it. Most of my output is slides on slideshare.net/petermurrayrust. My main activity is building disruptive software. We are close to having an automatic reader of the scholarly literature. I'm doing a talk today on climate Change and Migration. I'm also running a project on openVirus - scraping the worlds literature on viral epidemics and how to tackle them What would you like a talk on? Would be delighted. Can do this at short notice - days - e.g. next week? As you know I am an activist and see little value in the current scholpub industry. Latin America does it better. Can we Look back to the Scottish enlightenment and re-empower citizens to help us share knowledge? We can change the world if we want to. COVID is a decision point. Universities will be different. Let's get informatics students, not Elsevier, building the libraries of the future. P. On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:06 PM Valerie McCutcheon < valerie.mccutch...@glasgow.ac.uk> wrote: > Thanks for sharing Peter. Don't suppose you have anything published/grey > literature out there on this topic or fancy giving a short community > informal talk on your perspective? > > Valerie > > -Original Message- > From: goal-boun...@eprints.org On Behalf Of > goal-requ...@eprints.org > Sent: 10 June 2020 12:00 > To: goal@eprints.org > Subject: GOAL Digest, Vol 103, Issue 5 > > Send GOAL mailing list submissions to > goal@eprints.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > goal-requ...@eprints.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > goal-ow...@eprints.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than > "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > >1. Re: BioMedCentral 2020 (Peter Murray-Rust) > > > -- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:41:52 +0100 > From: Peter Murray-Rust > Subject: Re: [GOAL] BioMedCentral 2020 > To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" > Cc: "scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org" > , Anqi Shi < > ashi...@uottawa.ca> > Message-ID: > < > cad2k14pwuck-cwwdjgauc_5zaoewxveswgnuquwhz0ycwpy...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Thank you Heather, > These are valuable figures that show that "Open Access" does not always > bring knowledge justice. > > I was involved with BMC nearly from the start - it broke new ground - > showed that "OA" could be profitable and sustainable. I was on the > Editorial Board of Journal of Cheminformatics from the start until I > resigned (on this issue) . The editors past and present are close friends > and colleagues and have been a primary force for innovation in chemistry. > > But the takeover by Springer has been ultra-capitalist and an example of > knowledge neocolonialism. From where I was I saw no positive support from > Springer. The editorial board were expected to pay all their expenses > including travelling to US for a "meeting", that was inadequately supported > by Springer (no minutes were kept). Springer provided effectively no > support. They may have provided some generic support for IECs, but in my > view minimal. I addressed all these concerns and got no reply. > > I guestimate (without evidence) that the "prices" are roughly > * 30% true "costs" (much larger than they should be because there is no > pressure) > * 30% corporate (branding, offices, etc.) > * 10% philanthropy (waivers) > * 30% direct to shareholders > > I therefore resigned with as much publicity (not much) that I could > generate. > > It is critical to realise that OA does not guarantee: > * knowledge justice > * global equality (in fact in companies like BMC it is divisive) > * innovation (commercial publishers have no incentive to innovate and this > is holding science/scholarship back massively). The lack of modern > technology means that data which should be used to validate science is > omitted or published as bitmaps. People die because of our current > publication processes. > > It seems clear to me that Editorial Boards and many Editors are > effectively sidelined by megapublishers, who create tech and processes that > benefit them, not the readers or the world. The plethora of arcane > publishers all competing to create different brands effectively destroys > much scientific knowledge. > > This will not be solved by COAS or similar schemes which will perpetuate > the problems above. > > The immediate answers lie in > * preprints (organised by trustable organisations, not publishers) > * in a few disciplines , regulated by scholarly societies but NOT > commercial publishers > * national publications (e.g. Ameli_CA, in Latin America) > * zero price community journals e.g. J Open So
Re: [GOAL] GOAL Digest, Vol 103, Issue 5
Thanks for sharing Peter. Don't suppose you have anything published/grey literature out there on this topic or fancy giving a short community informal talk on your perspective? Valerie -Original Message- From: goal-boun...@eprints.org On Behalf Of goal-requ...@eprints.org Sent: 10 June 2020 12:00 To: goal@eprints.org Subject: GOAL Digest, Vol 103, Issue 5 Send GOAL mailing list submissions to goal@eprints.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to goal-requ...@eprints.org You can reach the person managing the list at goal-ow...@eprints.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of GOAL digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: BioMedCentral 2020 (Peter Murray-Rust) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 10:41:52 +0100 From: Peter Murray-Rust Subject: Re: [GOAL] BioMedCentral 2020 To: "Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci)" Cc: "scholcomm-requ...@lists.ala.org" , Anqi Shi Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Thank you Heather, These are valuable figures that show that "Open Access" does not always bring knowledge justice. I was involved with BMC nearly from the start - it broke new ground - showed that "OA" could be profitable and sustainable. I was on the Editorial Board of Journal of Cheminformatics from the start until I resigned (on this issue) . The editors past and present are close friends and colleagues and have been a primary force for innovation in chemistry. But the takeover by Springer has been ultra-capitalist and an example of knowledge neocolonialism. From where I was I saw no positive support from Springer. The editorial board were expected to pay all their expenses including travelling to US for a "meeting", that was inadequately supported by Springer (no minutes were kept). Springer provided effectively no support. They may have provided some generic support for IECs, but in my view minimal. I addressed all these concerns and got no reply. I guestimate (without evidence) that the "prices" are roughly * 30% true "costs" (much larger than they should be because there is no pressure) * 30% corporate (branding, offices, etc.) * 10% philanthropy (waivers) * 30% direct to shareholders I therefore resigned with as much publicity (not much) that I could generate. It is critical to realise that OA does not guarantee: * knowledge justice * global equality (in fact in companies like BMC it is divisive) * innovation (commercial publishers have no incentive to innovate and this is holding science/scholarship back massively). The lack of modern technology means that data which should be used to validate science is omitted or published as bitmaps. People die because of our current publication processes. It seems clear to me that Editorial Boards and many Editors are effectively sidelined by megapublishers, who create tech and processes that benefit them, not the readers or the world. The plethora of arcane publishers all competing to create different brands effectively destroys much scientific knowledge. This will not be solved by COAS or similar schemes which will perpetuate the problems above. The immediate answers lie in * preprints (organised by trustable organisations, not publishers) * in a few disciplines , regulated by scholarly societies but NOT commercial publishers * national publications (e.g. Ameli_CA, in Latin America) * zero price community journals e.g. J Open Source Software, J Machine Learning Research). This will make us (literally) a healthier world. | On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:30 PM Heather Morrison wrote: > BioMedCentral (BMC) 2019 ? 2020 > > *by Anqi Shi & Heather Morrison* > > *Key points* > >- Open access commercial publishing pioneer BMC is now wholly owned by >a private company with a portfolio including lines of business that derive >revenue from journal subscriptions, book sales, and textbook sales and >rentals >- Two former BMC fully OA journals, listed in DOAJ from 2014 ? 2018 as >having CC-BY licenses, are now hybrid and listed on the Springer website >and have disappeared from the BMC website >- 67% of BMC journals with APCs in 2019 and 2020 increased in price >and 11% decreased in price. >- Journals with price increases had a higher average APC in 2019, i.e. >more expensive journals appear to be more likely to increase in > price > > > > *Abstract* > > > > Founded in 2000, BioMedCentral (BMC) was one of the first commercial > (OA) publishers and a pioneer of the article processing charges (APC) > business model. BMC was acquired by Springer in 2008. In 2015, > Springer was acquired by the Holtzbrinck Publishing Group in 2015 and > became part of
