5 ms·
> When publishing in a journal, I think you transfer your copyright to them That is correct. I have done this for every publication I've ever put out (O(10)).
by arcanus 10y ago
> When publishing in a journal, I think you transfer your copyright to them
That is correct. I have done this for every publication I've ever put out (O(10)). There may be exceptions but this is certainly the dominant paradigm in the physical sciences.
My two cents: this is bigger than any University. It will require a government funding agency (likely, NIH or NSF) to take a stand vis a vi the public availability of research produced by public funding.
- mnw21cam 10y agoSince a few years ago, any EU or UK public funded research (which is most university research) must be published as open-access. It is a requirement of the funding. So this is already happening. However, it will need to be done by a greater proportion of the world to be effective. The only problem is that the method of open access publishing is usually to pay a few grand to the publisher for the privilege.
- return0 10y agoThat can be a lot of money. E.g. elsevier charges $5000 / article : http://www.cell.com/rights-sharing-embargoes http://www.cell.com/rights-sharing-embargoes And that is money that should be going to research.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoI completely agree. I've said it before, pay-for open access (aka. "gold open access") needs to go die in a fire.
- mandor 10y agoThe actual rule for European grant (H2020) is "either publish in open-access or put the paper on arxiv or similar archives". We can still publish in non-open access journals provided that we put the paper on an open access repository.
- xioxox 10y agoAre you sure? I think it's only funders like Wellcome that require open access. My UK collaborators (in physical sciences) don't publish in open access journals.
- genericpseudo 10y agoDo they self-archive? That was common practice back when I was an active researcher (early to mid 2000s).
- mnw21cam 10y agoWellcome has required it for a while. Any papers you plan to use in the Research Excellence Framework for 2020 (for those not acquainted, an exercise every few years where UK universities get to say "look how good we are, we published this many papers, please keep funding us") must be available as open access. It isn't necessary for these papers to have gone the gold open access route (where you pay a *!&^%-ton to the publisher), so you could instead upload the non-published version to a preprint server (which is a lot cheaper).
- untilHellbanned 10y agoAgree completely. The government needs to act. As a professor in molecular biology I would be happy with the banning of publishing in for-profit journals.
- dnautics 10y agoIt's not the for profit part that's the problem. It's the closed access part that is. Afaik, AAAS and ACS run science and all the chemistry journals respectively and they're both nonprofits with frustrating paywalls. conversely if a for profit could effectively monetize a 100% open access journal, it would be totally fine.
- notahacker 10y agoThe standard acceptable practice, at least in social sciences, is to publish the working paper. It'll be subtly different since it's pre peer-review and if you're an academic publishing your own paper you'll be expected to cite the full journal verson. But for the average person that wants to read the paper but doesn't have access to the journal, the working paper is more than adequate.
- Fomite 10y agoThe NIH has already done so, as noted in another comment - there's a brief period under which NIH funded work isn't open access, but then it needs to be available. Additionally, many copyright transfer agreements expressly allow an institutional archival system.
- genericpseudo 10y agoOne of the big drivers in the biological sciences has been non-governmental funding mandating OA, notably the Gates and Wellcome Trusts. Everyone in the physical sciences uses arXiv.