Turns out Princeton's faculty has adopted an open-access policy: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/princeton-u-adopts-open-access-policy
Not sure how this would affect submissions to journals with restrictive copyright policies. Maybe it would mean no submissions from Princeton faculty. :-) Jason On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mel Chua <m...@purdue.edu> wrote: > On 09/30/2011 11:21 AM, Don Davis wrote: > >> Having to assign copyright to someone else recently felt like a sort >> awkward uncomfortable rite of passage in the academic world. >> > > But it *doesn't* have to be a rite of passage. I mean, yeah, the situation > sucks and we *do* have to deal with it now, but just "putting up with it" or > quietly avoiding the medium of peer-reviewed journals entirely won't make it > change. I'd like to make things so that someday my own PhD students won't > have to go through that at all. (It may be a very far-off someday. That's > okay. We have time.) > > > What's a list of the better 'open' journals? >> > > So I've looked at this some, and sadly in our field the "good" journals and > the OA journals overlap in... zero places, as best as I can tell. (Actually, > I couldn't find any OA journals I would want to submit my scholarly work to, > but my subfield is engineering education so others may have more pointers.) > > > The copyright agreements often seem very overwhelming. (I'm thinking of >> ACM.) >> > > ACM is actually pretty standard. IEEE is worse, they'll ask for copyright > assignment upon *submission* -- not even acceptance! One of the other major > publishers in my field, ASEE, has even weirder and loopier and fuzzier > copyright stuff... it *is* overwhelming. It also seems like we tend to deal > with the overwhelmingness by signing the papers so we can move on with our > lives/research instead of getting mired in legal stuff which isn't > interesting to us. So major props for taking the time to look at this, Don > -- and thank you. > > > "You're not giving ACM the copyright to the dataset -- just the paper >> itself. Research hypotheses are, in general, second order – that is, >> they're not simple descriptions of the data (i.e., sample size, gender >> distribution). On a public dataset, descriptions (first-order analyses) >> are assumed to be public, as well." >> > > It seems to me then (with my limited knowledge and limited copyright >> finesse), that making the dataset public before submission may be a way >> to guarantee(?) that you and others may continue to evaluate the data. >> > > I think so! Seb Benthall sent me a link to a blogpost from one of his > colleagues from Berkeley on exactly this strategy, and then I think I lost > the link (or at least can't find it now). Seb, do you remember what I'm > talking about? > > > --Mel > ______________________________**_________________ > tos mailing list > tos@teachingopensource.org > http://lists.**teachingopensource.org/**mailman/listinfo/tos<http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos> >
_______________________________________________ tos mailing list tos@teachingopensource.org http://lists.teachingopensource.org/mailman/listinfo/tos
