5 ms·

Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Maybe something would start to happen if scientists

Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Maybe something would start to happen if scientists preferentially avoided citing non-openly published papers. They won't though, because their work is too competitive, but it might help to put a damper on it.

kragen 11y ago
One problem with that is that, as I understand it (I'm not an academic), not citing a relevant paper makes you look ignorant and can lead to accusations of plagiarism or attempts to steal credit; more subtly, it can lead to the reviewer whose paper you didn't cite recommending that your paper not be published. So it's not about being competitive, exactly; it's more about being cooperative. If you don't cooperate, other researchers won't cooperate with you, and your career will founder. For the most part, I don't think scientists care about the issue, except for being a bit annoyed with Elsevier. Most people don't care about most things that don't affect them directly. Scientists are people too. So rather than invest effort in activism, they mostly focus on their jobs and their families and stuff.
vortico 11y ago
Random guess, but it seems that 50% of journals in the fields I've been in are owned by Elsevier, even if it doesn't appear to be at first. And yes, a publication in an Elsevier or Springer journal rather than a new open-access one can make a difference of prestige that could change which university I work for in the next 4 years, for example.
- DarkLinkXXXX 11y ago
  > And yes, a publication in an Elsevier or Springer journal rather than a new open-access one can make a difference of prestige that could change which university I work for in the next 4 years, for example. But won't every university you apply to tell you that that isn't the case?
  - vortico 11y ago
    I've never heard this from any university.
masklinn 11y ago
> Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Scientists don't love giving up their rights to Elsevier. Elsevier owns many high IF journals in a number of fields, and publishing in high IF journals is part of how you "prove your worth" and get grants. Scientists give up their rights to Elsevier because that's how the "scientific economy" of their field of study is currently structured.
- baldfat 11y ago
  Professors are "expected" to be published in these journals in large Universities. They basically will never advance their career without be published in a "major journal."
  - DaveWalk 11y ago
    Early career academics are a slave to the system for career advancement; late career (successful) academics are too complacent to want to change. The only way the parent's idea will take root is if established academicians vote with their own writing, and go on a mission to convince others in their sphere of influence. As you say, to do this as a young researcher is career suicide.
- vixen99 11y ago
  If they have the will and the guts they'll do it or is Elsevier going to cream off taxpayers' money for ever and a day? Gower has said "no" http://thecostofknowledge.com/ http://thecostofknowledge.com/ - how about a few others?
  - masklinn 11y ago
    > If they have the will and the guts they'll do it The only thing "will and guts" do when all your field's high IF journals are big publishers is give you the boot. > Gower has said "no" Gower was a Fields medalist, Royal Society fellow and Shaw selection committee member before saying no, his stand is nice but he's not what I'm talking about. > how about a few others? Many have signed the petition and possibly more have actually done the work of trying to set up or raise the profile of open-access journals.
rubinelli 11y ago
Things would change very fast if consideration for funding and tenure was based strictly on openly published papers. My understanding of current policies is that they basically force scientists in several different areas to produce content for free for Elsevier if they want to have a career at all.
- kragen 11y ago
  That sounds like it might be a more plausible mechanism than preferential citing.
- rsfern 11y ago
  The FASTR act in the Senate would essentially implement the funding side of this. Changing tenure policies is also an important component in getting a culture shift towards open research. http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/national/fastr/faq http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/national/fastr/faq
pfortuny 11y ago
It is easy to give your money to Elsevier when your future career depends to a great measure in having Elsevier publish your research. You may be angry but the scientist needs a future.
mtgx 11y ago
Are there good self-publishing platforms, where the scientists can go, though? If there are, then yeah, they have no excuse.
- happimess 11y ago
  I'm not a working scientist, so I can't speak to whether or not this is a sufficient platform to bypass journals, but I thought I'd put in a plug for the Center for Open Science. [0] I'm not affiliated, just a fan of their work. [0] http://cos.io http://cos.io
eggie 11y ago
I think this is happening, if slowly. The impact of open publications is generally known to be much higher. It's only a matter of time until this is accepted as fact by everyone, even the conservative older types who believe that anonymous peer review is a helpful institution.
k2enemy 11y ago
No, everyone hates it. But that is the equilibrium that we're in. Everyone wishes we were in a different equilibrium with open-access online journals, but that's the tricky thing about equilibria -- nobody wants to unilaterally deviate from the status quo. Some fields (like math) seem to be pulling it off, but it takes a group of leaders in the field to coordinate a change in publishing models.
teps 11y ago
I'm not sure about the workflow, but Elsevier ask for scientist to peer review the paper no? Couldn't the scientist refuse to peer review non-openly published papers?
- rsfern 11y ago
  You could, but typically the editor of the journal asking for reviews is a leading academic in the field of the journal. Refusing to review non-open work sounds like a good way to burn political capital for those early in their careers.

kragen 11y ago

One problem with that is that, as I understand it (I'm not an academic), not citing a relevant paper makes you look ignorant and can lead to accusations of plagiarism or attempts to steal credit; more subtly, it can lead to the reviewer whose paper you didn't cite recommending that your paper not be published. So it's not about being competitive, exactly; it's more about being cooperative. If you don't cooperate, other researchers won't cooperate with you, and your career will founder. For the most part, I don't think scientists care about the issue, except for being a bit annoyed with Elsevier. Most people don't care about most things that don't affect them directly. Scientists are people too. So rather than invest effort in activism, they mostly focus on their jobs and their families and stuff.

vortico 11y ago

Random guess, but it seems that 50% of journals in the fields I've been in are owned by Elsevier, even if it doesn't appear to be at first. And yes, a publication in an Elsevier or Springer journal rather than a new open-access one can make a difference of prestige that could change which university I work for in the next 4 years, for example.

DarkLinkXXXX 11y ago
> And yes, a publication in an Elsevier or Springer journal rather than a new open-access one can make a difference of prestige that could change which university I work for in the next 4 years, for example. But won't every university you apply to tell you that that isn't the case?
- vortico 11y ago
  I've never heard this from any university.

masklinn 11y ago

> Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Scientists don't love giving up their rights to Elsevier. Elsevier owns many high IF journals in a number of fields, and publishing in high IF journals is part of how you "prove your worth" and get grants. Scientists give up their rights to Elsevier because that's how the "scientific economy" of their field of study is currently structured.

baldfat 11y ago
Professors are "expected" to be published in these journals in large Universities. They basically will never advance their career without be published in a "major journal."
- DaveWalk 11y ago
  Early career academics are a slave to the system for career advancement; late career (successful) academics are too complacent to want to change. The only way the parent's idea will take root is if established academicians vote with their own writing, and go on a mission to convince others in their sphere of influence. As you say, to do this as a young researcher is career suicide.
vixen99 11y ago
If they have the will and the guts they'll do it or is Elsevier going to cream off taxpayers' money for ever and a day? Gower has said "no" http://thecostofknowledge.com/ http://thecostofknowledge.com/ - how about a few others?
- masklinn 11y ago
  > If they have the will and the guts they'll do it The only thing "will and guts" do when all your field's high IF journals are big publishers is give you the boot. > Gower has said "no" Gower was a Fields medalist, Royal Society fellow and Shaw selection committee member before saying no, his stand is nice but he's not what I'm talking about. > how about a few others? Many have signed the petition and possibly more have actually done the work of trying to set up or raise the profile of open-access journals.

rubinelli 11y ago

Things would change very fast if consideration for funding and tenure was based strictly on openly published papers. My understanding of current policies is that they basically force scientists in several different areas to produce content for free for Elsevier if they want to have a career at all.

kragen 11y ago
That sounds like it might be a more plausible mechanism than preferential citing.
rsfern 11y ago
The FASTR act in the Senate would essentially implement the funding side of this. Changing tenure policies is also an important component in getting a culture shift towards open research. http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/national/fastr/faq http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/national/fastr/faq

pfortuny 11y ago

It is easy to give your money to Elsevier when your future career depends to a great measure in having Elsevier publish your research. You may be angry but the scientist needs a future.

mtgx 11y ago

Are there good self-publishing platforms, where the scientists can go, though? If there are, then yeah, they have no excuse.

happimess 11y ago
I'm not a working scientist, so I can't speak to whether or not this is a sufficient platform to bypass journals, but I thought I'd put in a plug for the Center for Open Science. [0] I'm not affiliated, just a fan of their work. [0] http://cos.io http://cos.io

eggie 11y ago

I think this is happening, if slowly. The impact of open publications is generally known to be much higher. It's only a matter of time until this is accepted as fact by everyone, even the conservative older types who believe that anonymous peer review is a helpful institution.

k2enemy 11y ago

No, everyone hates it. But that is the equilibrium that we're in. Everyone wishes we were in a different equilibrium with open-access online journals, but that's the tricky thing about equilibria -- nobody wants to unilaterally deviate from the status quo. Some fields (like math) seem to be pulling it off, but it takes a group of leaders in the field to coordinate a change in publishing models.

teps 11y ago

I'm not sure about the workflow, but Elsevier ask for scientist to peer review the paper no? Couldn't the scientist refuse to peer review non-openly published papers?

rsfern 11y ago
You could, but typically the editor of the journal asking for reviews is a leading academic in the field of the journal. Refusing to review non-open work sounds like a good way to burn political capital for those early in their careers.