Dutch Academics Declare Research Free-For-All 347
A user writes "The register reports how the Dutch open up their research to the rest of the world.
It goes on to tell that commercial scientific publishers such as Elsevier Science are not happy with it.
Will other countries and universities follow, or will they stick to the idea that knowledge is a commodity?"
knowledge is power (Score:5, Insightful)
Shows what I know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm all up for the Dutch research talked of, and I hope that this trend does continue. There is only one thing worse than capitalism - capitalism of knowledge.
Make the world a better place (Score:5, Insightful)
When knowledge is a commodity, you'll see a vast upsurge in new knowledge. Well, at least when Google starts to index all the available knowledge, of course.
Taxpayers' money (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, this raises the question whether anyone from countries other than Netherlands should be able to get it for free (gratis) -- but, the free (as in unhindered) exchange of ideas is pretty much what the ideals of science are about.
If a corporation wants a monopoly for knowledge, no one forbids it from paying for the research.
Wasn't this to be expected? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 'old days', the only way to spread your work to all your peers was through the estabjournals.
The publishers of those journals could ask a premium price for this service.
With the advent of the Internet, this barrier has fallen.
Publishers should find new ways of keeping their subscribers.
Needs peer review (Score:2, Insightful)
If not, and the open source nature of research spreads, it could be that the info can only ever be treated like the current internet's information, and, as such, be treated be extreme caution. With the potential effect of almost diluting the information to be unusable.
Salute the Dutch (Score:5, Insightful)
Enough of the fucking Doctor Evil posts...
The Dutch should be singled out as a great example of the scientific and engineering devolopment entity that made the Renaissance possible. Without the open participation and sharing of knowledge social and cultural progress would be at a standstill.
If you don't believe me, think where we would be without the Guttenburg printing press or how much information was flowing on the internet when it first came out and was an open community of academians and researchers.
When commercial jet airlines first developed, the BOAC had a plane called the Comet. It was the first plane to experience problems with metal fatigue and stress cracks. The industry at that time was very involved in finding solutions to problems and making better planes. As the direct result of this, the companies involved would share any and all information available in terms of problems and solutions in order to develop the entire industry rather than attempt to promote their own agendas.
This is a significant, albeit old, example of the synergy that can exist when information is shared freely rather than traded as a commodity. Unfortunately US industry, judicial, and legislation seem to have forgotten some of these lessons.
These Dutch aren't so "Freaky Deaky" but truely a credit and an example. Knowing the US, we'll probably bomb them because of some bullshit Patriot Act IP terrorist clause. The contrast makes me ill.
Re:Shows what I know... (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it isn't (Score:1, Insightful)
Knowledge is a public good. If I consume (that is aquire) knowledge, I don't take anything away from anyone else wanting to use the same knowledge. Now try that with bread.
Also, especially know in the digital age, spreading knowledge and therefor acquireing knowledge has zero or near zero marginal costs. If knowledge is out in the open it is free to be consumed by anyone without any additional costs.
Again, try that with bread.
So knowledge is not something that is comparable to other products like bread or bricks, it's fundamentaly different. Now what follows off that difference is of course up for debate, but at least try to understand the issue at hand.
Re:knowledge is power (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that many journals are struggling economically these days is not a good thing. And the fact that the information is not "free" does not mean that the information is closed off to the public. It just means that you (or your university, company etc.) need to contribute a small amount to part of the scientific process in order to access it.
Anyone who has ever written a scientific article knows that citing something you've pulled of some internet site does not carry much weigth. I'm not saying this Dutch solution is just "some internet site" (the article does no give much detail); I'm just making a general statement about the important role played by scientific journals.
Re:headline incorrect (Score:5, Insightful)
I am working at one of the involved universities, and since a few years ago we do have an official policy of never signing over any copyrights to publishers in preparation of this move.
In reality things don't work that way: since the university still judges our productivity by tracking publications, we do sign any form we have to to get our stuff into the important journals. Both the university and the big publishers have been ignoring this inconsistency for some years. As you may have noted, I am posting AC because I am terrified of publisher's copyright lawyers.
This way of measuring productivity is simply wrong: I never directly use the library anymore. I depend completely on Google Scholar. On my computer Google Scholar includes the university subscriptions to publishers, of course, but publications of the last 5 years are usually also available for free.
Most of my publications are freely available online, and they are representative of the things I have been doing over the last decade. They are also the things that get referenced most often. One usually writes two or three versions of essentially the same story in a period of 2-4 years, and the best one ends up in an article (and will never be read, and rarely referenced).
Re:No, it isn't (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Shows what I know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Taxpayers' money (Score:4, Insightful)
You really have no clue who funds research do you? Do you think academics sit around and think Hmmmm...I'll have the gubermunt pay for my research? We do, but it doesn't work that way.
Here in the states we are all about No Chil' Left Buhind, but when we want to make sure this is happening, we need to go to an outside corporation and beg for money. Why? Because this administration hadn't given us anything to actually pay for it (and the last one wasn't much better).
That is something that was a direct commandment of the gov't that we make sure this happened (I was on a team that went into rural schools to evaluate how the were faring with this and if any of their programs, such as experimental cross curriculum alignment of education was actually working better than others...its not my area of expertise, but it got me away from the office for 6 weeks to help out). And guess who paid for it...not the tax payers.
And then for other research projects? Generally you get a grant to do this. The last grant I was on, paid for my position, part of my bosses position, a fraction of his bosses, and a few ancellary positions that had nothing to do with the research other than we needed their ok to go on with it, and my team and fair market rent on my office. Oh yeah, it paid for our day to day activities for about 2 years. You know, the stuff that the gubermunt and da taxpayers 'were paying'.
All in all, we worked extended hours, got a good name for the department and the school, and didn't waste a single dollar of the tax payers money because we did what we were 'being paid to do' by the state and far more. We brought in 10x what the gov't was paying us, and subsudized the department in doing so -- and since our budget was so top heavy those two years, the state budget controllers decided that my department didn't need any raises (even though even if we bring in outside money, we have to fund our raises though base funds -- I could bring in new people and pay them 2x what I get from the grant, but I had to *BEG* for a 2% raise...to do so from the grant would be a 'conflict of interest'), our standard budget was slashed -- meaning that after our grant was over, we needed to immediately get another grant or our office was sunk and it was a game of politics, gotta get a much smaller grant this time so we can build up our base budget again so that we can use the tax payer money again to do our jobs -- smaller grant means we can ask for a little more next year, they can slash out budget by 70%, but we can only ask for 15% increase. The last 5 years, my budget for what is considered an invaluable department, has been paid for by someone other than the taxpayers...
Ok, I'm just rambling at this point, but my point is taxpayers RARELY pay for research. Taxpayers rarely pay for research that directly effects them. Taxpayers NEVER pay for research that is outside of the direct tasks infront of them (teaching you and your kids). Research, however, makes it possible for the departments that you cherish in your universities to actually exist and so that top researchers can sit in your classroom for 4 hours a week even though they could be making much more in the private sector and so that you can get real world hands on knowledge of working with technologies that don't formally exist yet and maybe contribute to society that way.
I think about saying fuck this every day and joining the corporate world. Everytime I work on a grant, I'm offered a job (my grants or others). Generally paying 4x what the university is paying (and thats without negotiation...probably much higher if I just went for it), but some of us feel we are making a difference where we are at where as we wouldn't make any difference elsewhere. I know any research I work on gets 49% of the royalties going back to XYZ University and 51% Big Corp, Inc, so its helping out (and thats another reason we can't j
Re:It IS a commodity (Score:3, Insightful)
Only peer review can assure quality of some specific knowledge, that's the academic principle for longer more than two millenia. With knowledge, sharing with others is a fundamental condition for top quality.
History will laugh at IP (Score:3, Insightful)
accept intellectual property as a concept.
Re:Taxpayers' money (Score:5, Insightful)
Third parties (read: corporations) fund some projects, but I have never read about a case where a scientific journal funded research. I don't mind if the employers of the researchers get some kind of preferred access to the results. But if they are employed by the taxpayers, the results of their research should be public.
Re:knowledge is power (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:headline incorrect (Score:3, Insightful)
It's now obvious to most academics that EVENTUALLY the web will take over from journals but for many reasons, (both good and bad), cultural things like this take time to adapt. I find it interesting that the "hard" sciences (physics, maths, etc) are well ahead of other fields when it comes to open web publishing, perhaps this comes down to the medium being a computer network.
Reminds me of MIT's Open Courseware Project (Score:5, Insightful)
By now, OCW has over 900 MIT classes available, and is an amazing success. I hope that the Dutch will succeed in a similar fashion.
Re:knowledge is power (Score:3, Insightful)
There is also not an easy avenue for feedback. Not rating scheme -- nothing. Just about the only measure one can use is "how many times is the article cited, and by who [important because a group may be citing their own articles again and again]".
The journals can probably reduce costs by getting rid of the paper version (fancy printouts and frequently the articles are either read online before the paper copy arrives or the paper copy is never opened).
Looking back at your post, it seems like I agree with most of what you say. However, I believe free availability is a good thing, as there are many avenues for cutting costs.
S
Reviewers work for free (Score:5, Insightful)
The barrier to a better system is that many of the established "high prestige" journals are the culprits who are skimming money from universities in this way, and getting in the way of open communication among researchers. What's needed is for the top reviewers and submitters to emigrate en masse to more responsible academic publishers. Yeah, unlikely - unless something major like this goes down and kick-starts the process.
Re:Shows what I know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh - OK. But your copyright notice reads: "Copyright Notice - The contents of this site are the intellectual property of David McKenzie. Personal use of this property is permitted without restriction. Commercial use is strictly unauthorised without written permission."
While that's well and good, aren't you depending on what you hate in order to prohibit "commercial use"?
Interesting you should prohibit free use of your material while expecting researchers open up their's.
BTW I wouldn't touch your material with a 10-foot pole because of the term "commercial use"; as far as I'm concerned that prohibits any use of it for all practical purposes. Suppose an ISP puts a Google ad on a personal page in exchange for a free web site? Suddenly it becomes "commercial use." Suppose I want to use some of it (with proper acknowledgement, of course) in an open-source GPL'ed project that I've volunteered my time for. Oops, the GPL allows its software to be used by a commercial company, no can do. I might be able to get permission from you, but the hassle usually isn't worth it. So I'll pass on your offer, thanks.
Re:That's why I love the Dutch (Score:2, Insightful)
Going to drag out a Heinlein quote... (Score:3, Insightful)
[Have nothing to add to this]
Re:knowledge is power (Score:3, Insightful)
Library's Freedom severely limited (Score:4, Insightful)
1) All periodicals are copyrighted and priced. Libraries pay for a subscription and the right to make the infomation accessible. Right now they (even the best scientific libraries such as the British Library) face soaring subscription costs and fixed budgets. Now imagine the situation for second-tier libraries
The point is that availability and dissemination is much lower than it would have been had all the content been available on the Web, and searcheable through e.g. Google.
2) In order to protect copyright, most articles are copy-protected. I.E. what you get from a library is either a printed copy or a
This sort of copy protection is perfectly reasonable from a commercial point of view
Having said this
Personally I do not think so, for the following reasons:
1) The articles published are by and large generated by publicly funded research institutions and universities.
2) The articles are all labouriously peer-reviewed, practically at zero cost to the publishers, by researchers working for publicly funded research institutions and universities.
3) The publisher obtains the copyrights from the author (again at zero cost)
4) The publisher produces paper prints and electronic copies of the articles
5) The publisher charges the public, publicly funded research institutions and universities premium prices for their valuable intellectual property
This would have been reasonable if the publishers provided a large added-value to the articles
So in summary, I believe that:
- that putting the results of publicly funded research in the public domain is a reasonable thing to do
- the Dutch initiative is a good way to start
Re:Taxpayers' money (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Salute the Dutch (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:knowledge is power (Score:3, Insightful)
and who, pray tell, is going to pay to fund the process of collecting papers, sending them off to the correct people to review, collecting those reviews, deciding whether or not the paper should be accepted, and editing the paper?
The internet solves 1 problem - publishing costs. Yes, they are a large part of the cost of journals, but no, they are not the entire cost.
Re:knowledge is power (Score:3, Insightful)
Researchers write the papers and review the papers for free and pay to read the journal. This is insane. I was once asked to review a paper for a journal for which I did not have access, thus was unable to check the previous issues (I eventually could through my institute's subscription). Also, you do not have the right anymore to distribute your article after it has been published, even if you were not paid for it.
Many journals are struggling because people have realized how absurd this is. Add to this that a journal paper can take up to 18 month between submission and publishing and it is easy to understand why electronic open-journals are taking over.
--
Go Debian!
Re:Salute the Dutch (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The way to do collaborative research is changin (Score:2, Insightful)
Servers like arXiv.org and at cern.ch
already contains huge
amounts of online material that can be search
and download.
Every major experiment has its own editorial board
as well so a lot of those papers have had some kind
of peer review process applied to them.
It is hard to find scientists willing to review
papers. Top scientists have their work cut out.
Getting grants, doing research and teaching.
Revewing papers unless it is a special paper is
something that is avoided at all costs.
Conferences proceedings are almost obsolete
as well since you can always find the talk
given on the conference's website, the paper
submitted to the publisher etc.
It is those pre-print servers and online information available to the
public which are putting the squeeze in publishing
companies. Libraries are doubting whether it is
useful to keep paper copies of papers and if the
expense is cost effective. It is the same old
story.. library's budgets are cut and the journal
prices are increased.
Publishing books is hard work and time consuming.
Most probably not cost effective to be done
yourself if you take into account how much your
time is worth.
It is easy enough to create something on pdf with
latex which gives you professional presentation
and stick it on your website
but the distribution of such thing would be
very limited.
I like books they are portatble and I can
annotate things on the margin.. laptops
are still too big to be as portable as book.
Cheers,
A.
Re:Shows what I know... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is only one thing worse than capitalism
That's a very ignorant statement. Hitler, Stalin, Mao - can you name any "worse" capitalist? Can you show me any modern society of people who have shown progress by adhering to non-capitalist ideology?
You are mistakenly equating greed with capitalism. There will always be greedy people in both capitalist and non-capitalist systems. The greedy will always abuse the system to take advantage of the weak. If you think non-capitalist societies protect the weak, you are sadly mistaken. There isn't a single non-capitalist system that hasn't either resorted to brutal oppression of the people - or to free-market policies to dig themselves out of the poverty ditch.
The Dutch have a capitalist system, do you think their research would even exist without it?
Re:The way to do collaborative research is changin (Score:4, Insightful)
Top scientists are usually editors of journals or series. They do their bit with regards to the peer review process. Young scientists can do most of the actual peer reviewing, this is not a problem as there are more of them, and it's not clear who is more afraid of novelty, whether it's old or young scientists.
Since the equilibrium has been disturbed we are in a time of change, and so lots of things are in a state of flux. I think journals will continue, they have the peer-review in place and that is the only thing that distinguishes science from crap. They will just become cheaper and more easily available, not the other way around.
Re:knowledge is power (Score:3, Insightful)
It could work if done right (Score:2, Insightful)
Peer Review. (Score:3, Insightful)
Researchers write the articles for free. Reviewers review the articles for free. Publishers take the results of this work and make mega, mega fucking dollars from it, for doing pretty much nothing at all.
It's a racket. Do you understand?
--grendel drago