The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How many research papers are freely available? - August 01, 2011
Nature Newsblog
http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/08/how_many_research_paper...
|
|
|
KemiRockarFett
Hazard to Self
Posts: 84
Registered: 23-7-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
As long as a lot of reserach is payed for with tax money also the result/papers must be public for free.
|
|
|
solo
International Hazard
Posts: 3975
Registered: 9-12-2002
Location: Estados Unidos de La Republica Mexicana
Member Is Offline
Mood: ....getting old and drowning in a sea of knowledge
|
|
....i feel information should be free to all that want to learn...not just to those privileged with funds....my commitment to access and give
information to those that need it, my small grain towards that end.....solo
It's better to die on your feet, than live on your knees....Emiliano Zapata.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Thank you solo. I think we all noticed your devote commitment to this idea and your generosity. It is much appreciated.
|
|
|
dann2
International Hazard
Posts: 1523
Registered: 31-1-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'll second that!
|
|
|
Fusionfire
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 8-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It pissed me off when I published papers in journals that when I left the university, I had (in theory, if I didn't have a copy myself) to pay to read
my own articles.
And it also pisses me off that I had to sign over the copyright for my work to the publishers, they charge money for people to read my research, they
paid $0 to fund the research and they pay $0 to the peer reviewers to read the paper.
Thieves.
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Fusionfire  | It pissed me off when I published papers in journals that when I left the university, I had (in theory, if I didn't have a copy myself) to pay to read
my own articles.
And it also pisses me off that I had to sign over the copyright for my work to the publishers, they charge money for people to read my research, they
paid $0 to fund the research and they pay $0 to the peer reviewers to read the paper.
Thieves. |
Well thing can be/have been better-worse.
Some journals supplied authors with x-number of copies
of their paper, others had Page charges i.e.,
they charged you to publish your paper... granted
some grants would pay for this. I lack current knowledge.
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The Public Library of Science journals have a very straightforward monetary model. The author pays an up-front fee, and PLoS provides open access
forever. Here's their page on publication fees.
|
|
|
Nicodem
Super Moderator
Posts: 4230
Registered: 28-12-2004
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Usualy once you start working in a certain field of science you get jobs where VPN access to some major or even most publishers is somehow provided by
the employer, or in the case of a job in the industry, you are usually limited to the access literature only from the computers at the job (for
"security reasons"). Still, I fully share the sentiment Fusionfire describes. It is undignifying not being allowed to access your own articles, but so
it is knowing that they are unaccessible to all of those who are not given access by some institution access, which means nearly 7 billion of people.
| Quote: Originally posted by The WiZard is In | Well thing can be/have been better-worse.
Some journals supplied authors with x-number of copies
of their paper, others had Page charges i.e.,
they charged you to publish your paper... granted
some grants would pay for this. I lack current knowledge. |
I'm afraid it still remains just like you describe it. I don't see the PLOS system as a solution. Charging money to the authors so they are allowed to
publish their work is also humiliating. Nevertheless, the PLOS journals are having their impact factor going up at an incredible rate and this will
eventually force the academic researchers, who depend on these factors like junkies on their junk, to forget about the humiliation and just force
their institutions to pay the bill. It is still a profit based enterprise and as such it can not bring any good. Scientific publishers should have
their expenses be paid from the money of the tax payers and a supervising board should make sure their never ever work for profit.
…there is a human touch of the cultist “believer” in every theorist that he must struggle against as being
unworthy of the scientist. Some of the greatest men of science have publicly repudiated a theory which earlier they hotly defended. In this lies their
scientific temper, not in the scientific defense of the theory. - Weston La Barre (Ghost Dance, 1972)
Read the The ScienceMadness Guidelines!
|
|
|
Fusionfire
Hazard to Others
Posts: 219
Registered: 8-7-2011
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem | | Usualy once you start working in a certain field of science you get jobs where VPN access to some major or even most publishers is somehow provided by
the employer, or in the case of a job in the industry, you are usually limited to the access literature only from the computers at the job (for
"security reasons"). Still, I fully share the sentiment Fusionfire describes. |
Thanks. When I was working at a large defence company as a research engineer there they have dismal access to journals. They only had access to a
handful of Elsevier-only journals that had a high % of papers relevant to defence work, and even that only papers in the last 5 years or so.
If you want to read a paper that they don't have a subscription to, you have to fill out a form, find a project number to charge the expense to, wait
for approval from accounts and your manager, ad nauseum. Bear in mind this happens while the project clock is ticking. It also must be repeated for
every non-subscribed paper.
So I would say the people who really have some notable freedom accessing journals are those in academia because of the many research interests and
faculties. Commercial institutions with specific research interests don't count.
| Quote: |
It is undignifying not being allowed to access your own articles, but so it is knowing that they are unaccessible to all of those who are not given
access by some institution access, which means nearly 7 billion of people. |
The world will be a better place if those publishing houses didn't exist and 7 billion people had free access to journals.
Who knows we might have had a cure for cancer by now.
| Quote: | Some journals supplied authors with x-number of copies
of their paper, others had Page charges i.e.,
they charged you to publish your paper... granted
some grants would pay for this. I lack current knowledge. |
I was told the electronic B&W versions are free (God forbid I lose the pdf!). If I wanted to have physical B&W or colour copies I would have
to pay for them.
| Quote: |
I'm afraid it still remains just like you describe it. I don't see the PLOS system as a solution. Charging money to the authors so they are allowed to
publish their work is also humiliating. Nevertheless, the PLOS journals are having their impact factor going up at an incredible rate and this will
eventually force the academic researchers, who depend on these factors like junkies on their junk, to forget about the humiliation and just force
their institutions to pay the bill. It is still a profit based enterprise and as such it can not bring any good. Scientific publishers should have
their expenses be paid from the money of the tax payers and a supervising board should make sure their never ever work for profit.
|
Or these days of the WWW universities/research institutes could just self-publish after an internal peer review process.
Seriously I don't see why we need publishers. They are a wholly unnecessary cartel/monopoly. Their existence is justified by some as being necessary
for peer review and publishing quality but as they pay their peer reviewers nothing and I have seen some atrocious papers or mistakes in published
ones, people could find their own peer reviewers, pay them £10 and still do a better job than them!
[Edited on 9-8-2011 by Fusionfire]
|
|
|
watson.fawkes
International Hazard
Posts: 2793
Registered: 16-8-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Nicodem | | I don't see the PLOS system as a solution. Charging money to the authors so they are allowed to publish their work is also humiliating. Nevertheless,
the PLOS journals are having their impact factor going up at an incredible rate and this will eventually force the academic researchers, who depend on
these factors like junkies on their junk, to forget about the humiliation and just force their institutions to pay the bill. It is still a profit
based enterprise and as such it can not bring any good. |
As a correction, PLoS is a tax-exempt non-profit. It's exactly the right form of organization for an open access publisher, because it has all the same operational requirements as any
other charity.
Humiliating? I don't see publication fees as any more humiliating than groveling for money, a.k.a. the grant proposal. Given just how much research is
grant-funded, the shortest path to improving open access is simply to require, as a condition of the grant, that any publications that result from
grant-funded research be open access. That would change things instantly. It's not like the grant money isn't plentiful enough to cover the
publication fees.
Another issue is simply cost accounting in academic institutions. The budget for journal acquisition is typically overhead, not tied to any particular
academic department. The institution typically takes a hefty cut of grant money. They could improve the situation simply by paying publication fees
out of that cut, so that there was no net change to department and researcher allocations.
All this said, paying for publication has the unfortunate incentive to the journal publisher to lower standards to seek increased revenue. This
incentive is present even for non-profits. This problem, however, is a second-order effect that would have to be addressed after the higher good of
open access is achieved.
|
|
|
The WiZard is In
International Hazard
Posts: 1617
Registered: 3-4-2010
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Open Access
Extracted from:—
Digitizing the Coin of the Realm
Electronic publication has transformed the culture of scientific
communication
Francis L. Macrina
American Scientist September-October 2011
http://tinyurl.com/Am-Scientist-Open-Access
Access for All
Earlier in this essay, I discussed online publication of articles as a service provided by publishers to complement the printed versions of their
journals. This form of electronic publication still requires users to have a subscription or an institutional site license to access online articles.
But a second, slower-growing form of publishing, which also began in the 1990s, lets readers access online articles for free. The business model for
such publications depends on the relatively low cost of distributing digitally encoded articles. And the expenses of doing so are borne by the authors
themselves or by their academic institutions or funding agencies.
At a meeting in 2003, a group of scientists, librarians and publishers wrote a document now commonly known as the “Bethesda Statement on Open Access
Publishing,” which has been widely embraced among open access (OA) publishers. The statement lays out two conditions that define OA publication.
First, it grants “to all users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access” to the published work, as well as a license to “copy,
use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly,” to distribute derivative works based on the original and to make a few copies for personal
use. Second, it promises that the work will be deposited in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic institution or other
“well-established organization” that supports open access and long-term archiving. In practice, this definition has been widely adopted, with
individual variations among publishers.
Although it had a slower start than subscription-based online publishing, the OA model is now viable and growing. A website called The Directory of
Open Access Journals reported the existence of 6,671 OA journals in all scholarly fields at the end of June 2011. And in a study published this year
in the OA journal PLoS ONE, Mikael Laakso and colleagues reviewed 16 years of OA publishing, from 1993 to 2009. They report that the number of such
journals grew 18 percent per year, while the total number of scholarly journals grew only 3.5 percent per year. The numbers of OA journals and
articles show impressive growth curves over the time frame. But despite the increase, these articles accounted for only about 8 percent of all
scholarly papers published in 2009.
Other studies have shown that researchers are well aware of OA journals and increasingly publish their work in them. Perceived advantages include free
accessibility to users and the ability to reach a wide readership. The validity of criticisms, such as diminished prestige and lower peer-review
quality, remains unresolved. The acceptance of OA publishing and the success of the enterprise may be best expressed by the fact that PLoS ONE
published 6,749 papers in 2010, making it the world’s largest journal that year. Today, free access is part of the culture of scientific
publication. But it will be interesting to follow the trends as new publishers enter the marketplace and authors develop a better sense of the
desirability (or undesirability) of publishing in OA journals.
OA publication is often referred to as an “author pays” model, in contrast to the alternative, in which the user pays a fee to gain access.
Typically, authors have always paid to publish their work. In 1991, authors often spent several hundred dollars on page charges and reprint fees for a
single paper. But for OA publication, the author pays even more. These journals charge an article-processing fee that can range from about $1,000 to
several thousand dollars, depending on the journal. If you publish in a subscription-based journal that distributes articles in print and online, and
also offers an OA option, you rack up additional fees. Today, page charges are $50 to $100 per page, which would get you into print and online and
make your paper accessible to journal subscribers. Then, you might want to publish supplemental information on the journal’s website, for a
surcharge of up to several hundred dollars. Finally, you might decide to make your article freely available from the moment it appears online, a
decision that may cost you several hundred to thousands of dollars more. Today, as in the past, most journals waive or reduce page charges or OA fees
if the author demonstrates that he or she cannot afford them.
Although OA journal publishing is the dominant means for putting scientific results into the public domain, other strategies do exist—and all are
facilitated by online technology. Journal articles may be deposited into any of several public-domain digital archives such as PubMedCentral.
Subscription-based journals may allow authors to pay an extra fee to make their papers freely available online. Finally, researchers may post OA
manuscripts on non-commercial servers such as arXiv.org, or on personal or institutional websites.
Pondering the Power of Pixels
For more than 20 years, we have witnessed the profound effects of digital technology on scholarly publication. Changes in logistics and culture have
been diverse and numerous. But I would argue that today, open access is the central issue in the marriage of publication to the pixel. It may be
growing too fast for some and not fast enough for others, but it is growing nonetheless. I believe it is here to stay. It takes multiple forms, from
journals that exclusively practice free-to-user availability, to individual investigators who maintain online libraries of their own published work.
Will one model dominate over time? Are there more models to come? If the past 20 years are any predictor, the interplay of imagination, market forces
and evolving digital technology will continue to change the publication landscape.
In the meantime, the scholarly community has a role to play in the development of the OA movement. That community includes authors, publishers,
scientific societies, librarians and computer scientists. OA journal publishing should be subjected to ongoing evaluation to measure its impact, to
address problems and to improve the platform for all its users. There should be transparent assessment of performance metrics such as article
processing times, citations, peer-review quality and the costs to those involved.
Once such evaluations have been performed, they may help answer a growing host of questions: Is a goal of 100 percent open access reasonable or
desirable? Should researchers embrace some forms of OA publication and not others? What about server space, backup and security issues specific to
online-only journals? As we move toward a more OA culture, what role do—and should—printed journals have? Should there be more proactive education
about OA publication? Do we need to be more forward-thinking about who should pay for publication costs? Many research funding agencies do pay
grantees’ publication fees, but with OA publishing, the budget may have to increase. Should our institutions step up to the plate with their
checkbooks? To gain maximum effect, the analyses that address these questions should be made by parties devoid of conflict of interest, and—in the
spirit of open access—the results should be placed in the public domain.
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
