Libraries Defend Open Access 116
aisaac writes "Earlier this year an article in Nature (PDF, subscription required) exposed publishers' plans to equate public access to federally funded research with government censorship and the destruction of peer review. In an open letter last month, Rockefeller University Press castigated the publishers' sock-puppet outfit, PRISM, for using distorting rhetoric in a coordinated PR attack on open access. Now the Association of Research Libraries has released an Issue Brief addressing this PR campaign in more detail. The Issue Brief exposes some of the distortions used to persuade key policy makers that recent gains made by open access scientific publishing pose a danger to peer reviewed scientific research, free markets, and possibly the future of western civilization. As an example of what the publishers backing PRISM hate, consider the wonderfully successful grants policy of the National Institutes of Health, which requires papers based on grant-funded research to be published in PubMed Central."
say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:say what? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:say what? (Score:5, Informative)
ya right (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What do you mean you have to ask your doctor? Haven't you seen the commercials?
The purple pills make you go prancing through grassy fields.
-
Re: (Score:2)
The purple pills make you go prancing through grassy fields.
Re:say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Second there are aspects of applied research which do not manifest in a product, but instead teach society something. For example, if several studies are conducted to determine whether or not simple vitamins can treat a serious disease, then the result may be a profound and inexpensive treatment. The market, however, will never fund this because the result of the research is not a marketable product.
Suggesting that the market will somehow fund research when most research of value produces no marketable products is naive at best. Instead, society should be funding far more research than it currently is through governmental means, and I wager it will be funding quite a bit more research as the state of society continues to advance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only direction I have been able to think of going from where we are now that might bring back some sanity is selling long horizon futures in researchers, either as
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:say what? Missing the point (Score:1, Informative)
bozos who want me to pay over $60,000 for back issues of say, rev sci inst, and I am not
making this up. Does AIP really promote physics by doing this, or just enrich themselves. They
fund zero research last I checked.
And last I checked, the governments fund nearly all pure research, and even that is getting
mostly reduced to more short term goals these days.
Point is, I, you, and anybody else who pays taxes already paid
Re:say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Capitalism is a great system until it buys government influence.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:say what? (Score:5, Informative)
New milennium capitalism uses political means to artificially support a business model and short-circuit free market competition. If you can't win by competing, pay off the political process to rig the rules in your favor.
What is basically happening is that the publishers want to protect their little piles of paper via legislative means. If they actually had something worthwhile, people would pony up for access. In the old days libraries would pay for hard copies because there really was no other way to do it and the prices were fairly reasonable. Individuals might personally subscribe to a relevant journal. Now that there is no reason to actually print hard copies the publishers are fighting tooth and nail to stay in business.
If the government wanted to do something useful, they could set up a framework in which legitimate peer reviewed journals could be published online free of charge.
If we are going to have an information superhighway it shouldn't be a toll road.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In any given field, the number of people working on specific aspects of a given probem can be small - there may only be one or two people publishing in a specific area and they already know about all the existing research. Additionally, they know which journals might publish research relevant to their particular niche. They also might be the only people in the world really qualified to assign tags and
Re:say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
New milennium (sic) capitalism uses political means to artificially support a business model and short-circuit free market competition. If you can't win by competing, pay off the political process to rig the rules in your favor.
There is nothing, NOTHING new to that process. It has been going on for at least 5 millennia.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected on two counts - my spelling and for suggesting that political interference in free markets is anything new. It's just that it seems to me that it is being used more brazenly (think microsoft and ISO) than it used to be, but this could si
Re: (Score:2)
Then explain the demise or radical downsizings and/or retooling of HP Labs, Xerox PARC, IBM Research, Tek Labs, et. al. None of them had "regulated monopolies", yet all of them seemed to have funds for relatively advanced R&D (and mostly R) back in the bad old days, but today are shells of themselves (if in existence at all). I personally blame corporate mismanagement of other functions reducing funds for most
Re: (Score:2)
Were any of them comparable to Bell Labs in terms of fundamental work? IBM may have been the closest, and they were also the closest to being a monopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
*cough* http://www.research.ibm.com/ [ibm.com] *cough*
To be clear, just because it's work done offshore, doesn't mean that research is worthless. Unless you really are suggesting that there are no smart people in India/China...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Fixed.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not flaming or anything: A couple of friends keep telling me I should Atlas Shrugged, so i would like to hear the other bell too.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason that their successors (Lucent, or whatever the rebranded spin-offs are called now) don't do the great research anymore is that they are now part of the capitalist market and beholden to the sacred cow of shareholder profits;
they no longer have money to spend on improving science and society, but must spend it all on things that will improve next quarter's bottom line.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be retaining copyrights (note the spelling) as they didn't hold them in the first place. This is more like forcing authors to give up their copyright (what one might consider to be, at least morally, copyright theft--I know, I know, how dare I use that phrase correctly on a sensationalist site like /.). This is another reason for not making copyright transferable. (Sure...you can give someone a lease on your copyright until it runs out, but the implications of what you
copyRIGHT (Score:2)
It amazes me how many computer programmers can't spell. However do you get your code to compile?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I type make, and it tells me where all the errors are. This is one of the things I dislike about python etc. ... typos become a runtime error, *sigh*.
Re: (Score:1)
That's the first problem: it's basically vanity press for those who
a.) have the $ to throw around, and
b.) want to skip past the long-established process of peer review.
That, in itself, sucks.
[these publishers usually retain copy write of the printed work and, recently, have been charging more and more for the privilege.]
In every other medium the author retains copyright: I'd like to see t
The article is about... 30 bucks (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot Submissions Showing Subtle Sarcasm +1
Re: (Score:2)
-
Re:say what? (Score:5, Informative)
- Research money (typically from the government, ie your money) is used to fund research and scientists write articles about it.
- Those articles are sent to periodicals (journals) to be published. The journals are corporate, and carry different amounts of prestige. For a researcher, getting papers in prestigious journals is extremely important, so they send them off willingly, and the journals do not pay a dime (in fact, sometimes the researcher has to pay).
- The article gets to sent to an editor at the journal, who is typically a well established senior researcher working for free because being an editor is prestigious (that is, he is working on time paid for by your money).
- The editor chooses researchers to do "peer review" on the article, that is anonymously write judge its merit. These peer reviewers work for free.
- If the article is accepted, the researcher is very happy, and gleefully signs over the copyright on the article he has written (which you paid for) to the corporate publisher.
- The corporate publisher, which now owns the article, won't let anybody access it unless they pay for a subscription to the journal. Large universities typically pay millions of dollars a year (again, largely your money) for journal subscriptions.
So to recap: researchers write the article for free (or pay), editors work for free, reviewers work for free, the publishers get the copyright and loads of money. In some fields you are even expected to typeset the article yourself, leaving the publisher only with the arduous task of visiting the bank to check on its ever increasing balance, and laughing at the sucker who finances all this (you). Because there is prestige in publishing in the "right" journal, and the money being spent doesn't belong to the people spending it, there is no market pressure to drive the prices down nor to make the system more sane. A number of companies, notably Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer, make incredible amounts of money off this.
Lately, however, something has finally started happening. The open access movement has been started to try to make scientific work freely available on the Internet, through open journals (like PLoS [plos.org]) and through researchers retaining copyright so they can put their articles on their own homepages and on sites like arXiv [arxiv.org] and aforementioned PubMed Central. This movement has gained a lot of momentum, and what is just starting to happen is that the people holding the pursestrap (like the National Institue of Health) want to start requiring that research they pay for published open access. Obviously, the publishers will do anything not to lose their sweet gig, hence the lobbyists all over capitol hill screaming censorship and government interference (both of which are completely ridiculous - I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but if the government pays for the science, it can say where you publish it).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:say what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As a former grad student I can assure you that many established journals charge authors a publishing fee on the same order of magnitude.
I've never understood this. In my field there are no publication fees, and it's a much smaller field than any of the natural sciences. How is it that in a field where the journals have a smaller audience, a journal subscription costs only a few hundred dollars and there are no fees, while in fields where there's a potential audience of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of people, the journals are ten times more expensive and charge fees to boot?
How much do referees for journals in the natural sciences get pa
Re: (Score:2)
These jobs can now more or less be handled by computers. In my subject (mathematics), researchers always have to typeset the articles themselves and submit camera ready copies in PDF format, whether the journal is open access or not. This is typically as easy as importing the journals LaTeX template and recompiling. I realize that other fields use inferior document preperation systems - but MS Word can import templates too, right?
The only
Re: (Score:1)
And at least with Nature and Science (I don't think with Cell), the editors actually chop and rewrite major portions of your manuscript to make it more readable to the general reader and even re-draw model figures, etc. So they do do serious editing that require a talented person even on a computer.
Again, I want to reiterate
Re: (Score:2)
say work for hire? (Score:2)
The governement could give the reasearch a non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to publish the work and extend that license to any peer-reviewed journal that warrants it. But the taxpayer could still be able to get access to the work through government libraries.
Re:say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The current model for the dissemination of scientific research is that scientists send letters and papers to journals, which are then peer assessed by reviewers assigned by the journal and, if they meet a certain standard, are printed. Journals used to be printed and sent to subscribers, and nobody complained that they had to pay to receive a copy of the journal.
Now journals can put papers online for their subscribers instead of printing, which makes people wonder exactly what the publishers are doing for the money they expect to get. They don't write the articles or pay the authors, and they don't review them or pay the reviewers (I write and review pretty regularly). But this remains the only accepted way to release your research, to appear in a well respected journal. The journals are now trading purely on reputations they have aquired for the standards of the work they accept.
Public Library of Science, as I understand it, is an online repository of research that is open to everybody. There are also several PLoS journals, that appear online and for free and perform most of the functions of the old paper journals and their online equivilants. PLoS is also gaining a good reputation for quality.
Traditional publishers are in trouble because of this, and will inevitably make some rather desperate arguments to preserve their business models, hence the article.
Re: (Score:2)
I enjoy slashdot-bashing when appropriate. But it's not wrong that they expect you to RTFA. I thought the summary was pretty clear and concise, provided you know what "open access", "peer review" and so on mean. A summary isn't a review article.
In Knuth's words... (Score:2)
Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. (Score:4, Interesting)
Letter to the Boston Public Library
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html [fsf.org]
* Send this page to somebody
To the Management of the Boston Public Library,
Don Saklad forwarded me your message which reports that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright protection technology" made by Microsoft.
The technology in question is an example of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology designed to restrict the public. Describing it as "copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a mechanism intended to deny the public the exercise of those rights which copyright law has not yet denied them.
The use of that format for distributing books is not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be changed, and that is the case here. I respectfully submit that the Boston Public Library has a responsibility to refuse to distribute anything in this format, even if it seems "convenient" to some in the short term.
By making the choice to use this format, the Boston Public Library gives additional power to a corporation already twice convicted of unfair competition.
This choice excludes more than just Macintosh users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an operating system made up of free/libre software, are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are locked up with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), it is illegal in the US to release free/libre software capable of reading these audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of arrangement to include capable software in MacOS (which is, itself, non-free software for which users cannot get source code). But we in the free software community will never be allowed to provide software to play them, unless laws are changed.
There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts.
I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management.
Sincerely
Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
MacArthur Fellow
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html [fsf.org]
Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a librarian for a public library in Pittsburgh. We get requests all the time for downloadable audiobooks. We got requests before we had any options, and we get them now that we offer both OverDrive and Netlibrary downloads. At least OverDrive has the option to (in some cases, if the publisher has allowed it) burn the book to CD. After that, you can then import it to iTunes and transfer it over to your iPod. It's stupid clunky and you're better off just getting the CDs in the first place to listen that way, but it can be done and OverDrive's CEO has been known to tell people that.
Now, here's the question from the library's point of view. Is it better to not offer ANY eAudiobooks at all, despite the many requests for them, than to offer ones that can only be used by those with the dominant operating system? (We have to make the same decision with video games, too. What formats do we buy in?) With all due respect to the parent poster and to Mr. Stallman, my job is not to take a stand on DRM. It's to provide materials to the public in the formats they want, and that means that in some cases, like it or not, we're going to decide to offer eAudiobooks that cannot be used by all computer users. Just as DVDs cannot be watched by VCR owners, and CDs cannot be listened to by those with merely a tape deck, and Mac software cannot be run on a Windows machine. We're going to have to judiciously apportion an appropriate part of the budget according to demand for the items.
Now, would libraries love to change this? Yes. I personally have a list of free, non-DRM sites that allow you to download eAudiobooks for free that I hand out along with instructions on how the library-accessible eAudiobooks work. The problem is that those sites (such as Librivox [librivox.org] or AudiobooksForFree [audiobooksforfree.com]) don't offer Janet Evanovich or John Patterson or the other bestsellers. They're generally things in the public domain (obviously), and our patrons usually want newer items.
Every chance I get, I complain to our Recorded Books representative (who works with Netlibrary) about the DRM limitations and make the case that should another company come along that offers downloads without DRM, we're gone to them no matter the cost. The libraries that have told OverDrive to buzz off in the past have just gotten shrugs. It doesn't change anything. (This includes the library located right next to Apple Headquarters, by the way. They finally gave in to demand.)
This is something that gets discussed all the time amongst librarians and on library blogs. My feeling is that complaining to the libraries is useless. We agree with you in spirit, but in practice, we're going to offer the product because our patrons want it. What we WILL support you in is complaining to the companies themselves, and in pushing the publishers to reach for a broader market. Instead of writing letters to libraries, spend your time convincing the publishers that they'll have wider listenership (without losing sales) if they hit the non-DRM market and convincing OverDrive and Netlibrary to begin offering other options than the protected WMA files.
From OverDrive's Web site, here's their contact information:
OverDrive, Inc.
Valley Tech Center - Suite N
8555 Sweet Valley Drive
Cleveland, OH 44125 USA
Phone: (216) 573-6886
Fax: (216) 573-6888
Email: info@overdrive.com
And from NetLibrary's Web site:
NetLibrary Division Office
4888 Pearl East Circle, Ste. 103
Boulder, CO 80301
USA
info@NetLibrary.com
Or, since NetLibrary is a division of OCLC:
Headquarters
OCLC Online Computer Library Center
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention that Audible.com [audible.com] offers audiobooks for download, and I'm under the impression that they're DRM-free and work with Macs. I haven't tried it, though, so I could be wrong. So a third option would be to somehow convince them (and have them convince their publishers) to enter the library market without adding DRM.
And yes, I _DO_ sit around all day and think about things like this and make up lists of where people can get free audiobook downloads. It's n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a librarian, it absolutely is your ethical/professional responsibility to evaluate the social implications of DRM technology and potentially take a stand on the issue. DRM acceptance has the potential to define the level of access to human knowledge people have. DRM use today has a direct impact on the extent to which libraries can archive information for the future.
The model for libraries has always bee
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree that DRM falls within my professional concerns, it's not the main concern of my job, and I'm certainly not going to treat it as such. I have complained to eAudiobook reps about compatibility issues, I've compiled lists of alternate sources of eAudiobooks for patrons, and I've spent countless hours with patrons trying to get t
Re: (Score:1)
One of the main reasons their titles are platform dependent is because they use DRM mechanisms which are platform dependent. Why are the DRM mechanisms so tied to specific platforms? One important reason is that to be effective, a DRM mechanism really have
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't archive all (or even most) of the stuff you have doesn't mean that the ability to archive isn't directly valuable to you. Further, I'm 100% sure that you would archive *everything* if you had the space to do so. Electronic storage of books and articles means that you naturally do have the space to store everything - DRM just prevents you from of taking advanta
Re: (Score:2)
IF we had the space and IF we had the money and IF we had the staff and IF we had the time to convert everything physical to digital and IF we had a good enough search algorithm to get relevant results from all the crap that would then be in the mix and IF
Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. (Score:2, Informative)
* Send this page to somebody
"I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management."
http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl [fsf.org]
Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon the system they currently use to distribute audio books, since this format require
Re: (Score:2)
Did he, you know, bother to ask what the alternatives were?
There are no eAudiobook vendors for libraries that do not use DRM. Librarie
Re: (Score:1)
It would be a good idea to list these examples on libraries' websites where library clientele are also pointed to overdrive. Then overdrive becomes one of the listed alternatives among other free audio books that are available. Boston Public Library and Cambridge Public Library http://www.cambridgema.gov/CPL/audiobooks.html [cambridgema.gov] across the river should list many of the alternat
Re: (Score:2)
Librivox [librivox.org]
Audio Books For Free [audiobooksforfree.com] (which has both free and pay options)
Free Classic Audio Books [freeclassi...obooks.com]
And this great post Audiobook Podcast Collection [oculture.com] at Open Culture, which lists some sites at the bottom.
If you go through through the list, you'll note that the vast majority are classics in the public domain rather than
Can't libraries negotiate? (Score:1)
Libraries are in the position of either not offering a service that is highly requested by patrons, or offering one that is useable only by those with the dominant operating system.
The library could ask patrons who feel serious about audio books to sign a petition against DRM in order to boost its negotiating power, right?
However, since my options are DRM or nothing, then I must reluctantly opt for DRM.
If your options for paper books were to keep them inside the physical presence of the library (and not lend them) or not to carry them at all, what would you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Any one library doing this would be ineffective. It has to be a big, organized movement, and frankly, we've got a few other things going on right now. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just don't expect your local library (which may consist of one overworked person) to necessarily put this at the top of their To Do list.
That said, I do recommend you stop in and have
Hyperbole? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On a side issue, it's interesting how the interweb has thrown a harsh light on these assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a breathtakingly bold projection, muted somewhat (weaseled?) by the word "possibly". Nope, haven't RTFA, but most "Chicken Little" pronouncements seem to fizzle sooner than later.
True, but don't discount the power these words tend to have when you're trying to write out something decidedly short-form and sway somebody's position X units that-away so they make a connection when they're reading about/observing related phenomena that smacks of your complaint, recall your little bit of hyperbole, an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I hope you aren't right, and afraid you might be...
No advocacy of the hype treadmill here, I assure you. That doesn't make the fact that informed and reasonably articulate individuals will pander to those inclined to react to over-the-top hyperbolic statements any less interesting of a quandary. Perhaps if there *were* real absolutes it'd be a different story, but I suppose we just need to remember that some people believe in their aims so strongly that they see them as such, and are willing to gain sup
But...how can you NOT trust Prism??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/antiopenscience
More OA info (Score:1)
http://listserver.sigmaxi.org/sc/wa.exe?A2=ind07&L =american-scientist-open-access-forum&D=1&O=D&F=l& S=&P=87619 [sigmaxi.org]
If I have to summarize that page (copy/paste), it'd basically go like this:
(1) PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL-ARTICLE AUTHORS GIVE JOURNALS THEIR ARTICLES FOR FREE: NO ROYALTIES.
The authors' research and writings are funded by government research grants and/or by salaries from their employers (mostly universities).
(2) PEERS REVIEW FOR FREE.
The peers' reviewing work and time are funded by salaries from their employers (mostly universities).
(3) PUBLISHER REVENUES FROM INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE CURRENTLY PAYING THE FULL COST OF MANAGING THE PEER REVIEW, SEVERAL TIMES OVER.
That is the status quo today: The costs of managing peer review are covered, many times over, by selling -- mostly to the authors' institutions -- paper and online access to the articles donated for free by the authors, with the peer review donated for free by the peers.
(4) IF INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE EVER CANCELED, PEER REVIEW MANAGEMENT COSTS WILL BE PAID OUT OF THE INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIPTION CANCELLATION SAVINGS.
If and when institutional subscriptions were ever canceled unsustainably as a consequence of Green OA, the cost of peer review could easily be paid for directly by institutions, on behalf of their employees, per paper submitted, out of just a fraction of the very same funds they have saved from their institutional subscription cancellations. All access and archiving would then be provided by the network of institutional OA repositories instead of the publisher, who would only provide the peer review. This is called "OA publishing" or "Gold OA."
With Gold OA still somewhat being farfetched, the OA movement is currently striving for Green OA, which means that the commercial publishers do their normal routine, but allow the authors to deposit their peer reviewed and for publ
the scholary communications process is broken (Score:5, Informative)
Again, the process is broken, and there are three contributing factors, listed here in no priority order. First, librarians (and libraries) desire to preserve the historical record for future use. This means they (we) desire to collect and organize just about as much of human's intellectual output in order to foster the growth of knowledge. Idealistic, I know, but it is true. Second, scholars (usually university faculty) have the natural desire for promotion and tenure. They want to be recognized by their peers and rewarded for achievements. This is often realized through publishing journal articles in sets of established venues. Third, publishers have the natural desire to earn as much money as possible. This is the nature of capitalism.
This three-fold combination (buy everything for the sake of future generations, published in established venues, and make as much money as possible) has driven the prices of scholarly journals through the roof. For example, just guess how much the average scholarly journal costs per year? If you guessed less than a few thousand dollars, then you were wrong. Twelve issues. Glossy paper. No ads. $3,000/year or more. Just about the worse journal is Brain Research costing close to $15,000/year.
Each of the three groups (librarians, scholars/researchers, and publishers) have the "rights" to do what they are doing, but in the process I sincerely believe the public gets the short end of the stick. Because the journals are licensed (not purchased) from the publishers, a person needs to be a part of the licensee's membership group in order to read the articles. This excluded the general public, researchers from abroad, or people in third-world countries. How are these people suppose to benefit from the research if they can't have access to the content?
Open access publishing is seen as one possible solution to these problems. It is very much akin to open source software. Research something. (Scratch an itch.) Write about it. (Document your software.) Deposit it in an archive and give it away (Make it available for download). Wait for comments. (Support your software.) Repeat, and enjoy the acknowledgement of your peers.
Open access publishing is not the answer to everything just as open source software is not the answer to everything. On the other hand, the public -- who has funded much of the research of scholars through tax-paid grants -- does have the right to access to materials they helped create. PRISM advocates the commercial sector continue to have control over the distribution process. Such a perspective is a disservice to the nature of scholarship and the freedom of access to fundamental knowledge.
--
Eric Lease Morgan
University Libraries of Notre Dame
Re: (Score:1)
Open access publishing is seen as one possible solution to these problems. It is very much akin to open source software. Research something. (Scratch an itch.) Write about it. (Document your software.) Deposit it in an archive and give it away (Make it available for download). Wait for comments. (Support your software.) Repeat, and enjoy the acknowledgement of your peers.
You're talking about preprints and peer commentary. OA Literature is about opening up peer reviewed literature. So what you're saying here isn't exactly accurate. It gives an incomplete view of what the strength is of OA literature: them being the same credibility but with changes in the funding and accessibility. To be more precise, the shifting of funding and more accessibility.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't this simple? (Score:3, Insightful)
1. An old economic model is dying: charging high fees for publishing & distribution of scholarly works
2. A new model is emerging: open, primarily web-based, access to these scholarly works after peer review
3. Publishers are desperate to retain their revenue streams, and will use PR, lobbying, rhetoric, and eventually legal means to stop this trend.
4. Vested interests (those who rely on the reputation of said journals) don't want to change the status quo.
It reads to me that PRISM ~= RIAA, circa 1999. The first salvos began with Napster's release, the first salvos here are beginning with rumblings of OA legislation.
Obviously there could/should be a nominal fee for hard copy redistribution, to manage the infrastructure of a such a press. But, when people can print their own copies with open access, this probably won't be needed.
The *real* economic value, it seems, of these publishers is the "brand reputation" associated with particular journals, which select certain articles for publication. Couldn't this be preserved by viewing these not as publishers, but as mere "content aggregators" of (open access) content? There's value in that, and a business could built on it, I'd think. (e.g. you're reading an example here w/ Slashdot).
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Couldn't this be preserved by viewing these not as publishers, but as mere "content aggregators" of (open access) content?
I'm familiar with one such "aggregator" service. It's called Faculty of 1000 [f1000biology.com]. A bunch of prominent researchers highlight important articles (especially "hidden gems" from lesser-read journals). The user pays a subscription fee to benefit from their service of separating the wheat from the chaff. It's a helpful time saver, and I imagine such services would become even more important in a decentralized, open-access system.
WOW (Score:2)
Wow. Impressive.
These must be the same guys that equate the Iraq war to "nation building".
-
turkeys voting for Christmas? (Score:1)
If everything I needed was Open Access then I wouldn't need to use my research library at all. At the moment all my research library does is manage the subscriptions that my University has with journals.
So in an Open Access academic environment, would we still need libraries?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And maintains the building that said journals are housed in. And hires the staff to keep you from walking out the door with the journals, having a party in the cubicles, smoking in the bathroom, or keeping the transients from moving into the library. And argues with IT each Wednesday after the computers freeze up. And argues with the budgeting staff of the University to replace those chairs that
Re: (Score:1)
Electronic journals don't need housing. Back issues are being scanned and made available fast. I don't have to leave my desk to get current journals.
Most of the rest of your comment was 'library exists to support library'.
Re: (Score:2)
And all of the servers? Think of the servers man! They need a home and someone to watch over them. Maybe you should talk to your library staff a bit about just what they do aside from telling you not to eat your lunch in the cubicles.
Re:turkeys voting for Christmas? (Score:4, Insightful)
Electronic journals don't need housing. Back issues are being scanned and made available fast. I don't have to leave my desk to get current journals.
I should consider it rather important to store multiple physical copies of scientific research in libraries throughout the world. There's already an alarming amount of obscure but relevant research from the 19th century and early 20th century that simply hasn't been widely reprinted and is in the danger of becoming folklore because the original manuscripts are so rare. Electronic storage is even less longevous than paper storage, it's not a solution for the ages.
Libraries are like RAID-5 of the research community.
The cost of the journals is killing libraries (Score:1, Insightful)
It's made even worse that some of journals have to be there for accreditation, or
Corporate Restrictions on Information (Score:2)
I have written about this before on Slashdot, and what the future holds for publishing in general, and any practical learning aid: Don't have Cash or Employed? Too bad, so sad because if you do not have either, your going to go to jail if you attempt to do research yourself.
Its all about controlling information just like it was back in the Dark Ages when lowly surfs caught trying to learn how to read where harshly dealt with, unless of course they had the permission of the Church or
A little caution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't in fact touch the peer review process at all. OA does not improve, nor worsen the quality of the peer review process, nor the articles undergoing that process. Journals can still and likely will exist even with 100% OA. Their role could and will still be mediating authors and referees through the p
PRISM eats babies! (Score:2)
They're totally without redeeming characteristics - they don't even publish any good recipes for deep-fried brat.