6 ms·

All publicly funded research should be freely available to the public ... its sad academics have allowed themselves to become enslaved by parasitic publishers .

All publicly funded research should be freely available to the public ... its sad academics have allowed themselves to become enslaved by parasitic publishers ... academics must launch a full court massive grassroots revolt away from publishing their research at such journals ... a short term period of chaos during the transition period over to open journals is a small price to pay for such freedom

lewis500 9y ago
Scholars can often make their work free via pre-print. The issue is that the published version isn't free, and the pre-print is hard to find and often not as nice looking. I made a github repo of my last paper published in an Elsevier journal. This was cool because I could put the latex and simulation code for others to copy. https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths The final version differs a little bit because they had a copy-editor go through and make some good improvements, even after the referees made their comments. Interestingly, the journal was fine with my linking to the repo within the text of the paper, as a way to share the code. There is nothing like real open access though. This journal has wonderful typesetting and such and is totally free: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860 https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860 It's funny what tricks they use to justify their existence. Always emailing me about bizarre author features no one will use. Makes me sad to think of the engineers sitting in a big room year-on-year polishing features no one will use.
- horsecaptin 9y ago
  It is free if they get publish by PLOS.
  - sghi 9y ago
    Are you sure? I'm nearly certain that PLOS is a publisher that charges manuscript charges for OA papers - most do.
    - greeneggs 9y ago
      PLOS One fees are $1500 per paper. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
    - horsecaptin 9y ago
      Ahh, I'm sorry. I meant Open Access - as in free to read upon publication. I did some more digging. Turns out they have some leeway for submission fees under some conditions: https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance
- AndrewGYork 9y ago
  In the same spirit, our lab is experimenting with a new approach to scientific publishing via Github: https://twitter.com/AndrewGYork/status/965765089373515776 https://twitter.com/AndrewGYork/status/965765089373515776 No paywall, no delay, straight to the web. Open data, open code, interactive/animated figures. Transparent, rolling peer review, version control, CC-BY license, citable DOIs. I was worried no one would read it, but it turns out science twitter is awesome. Very positive experience, so far.
  - greeneggs 9y ago
    That's good, but it is not a substitute for preprint servers. In particular, preprint servers are archival and more discoverable.
    - AndrewGYork 9y ago
      Sounds like we're pulling in the same direction re:improving scientific publishing. At the risk of debating an ally, do you mean to imply that preprint servers are "more archival"? I'm guessing you're familiar with CERN/Zenodo; you trust bioArxiv's continued existence more than CERN's? I rate them as similar, arguably with an edge to CERN. My experience with publishing is that discoverability is a stronger function of advertising and (especially) getting cited than the publication venue. I do agree that bioarxiv and arxiv are nice advertising venues, but there are lots of ways to skin that cat.
      - greeneggs 9y ago
        I'm actually only familiar with the arXiv, for physics and computer science research. I don't know much about biorxiv or Zenodo, but they both seem much better than a personal website or github page. The arXiv has overlay sites, such as http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ or https://scirate.com/ https://scirate.com/ , that improve discoverability over the basic arXiv interface; for example, you can browse all the papers in a given area posted in the last two months, sorted by some proxy for "interest." Of course there is also Google Scholar, and perhaps there are better ways.
btrettel 9y ago
PhD student here. I think refusing to transfer copyright is a better option in fields that have no open access journals, like my field. While I haven't published in a journal yet, the discussions I had with a few representatives of publishers at a conference suggested that some publishers will accept only a license to print if you ask. One publisher even showed me an example of an article where they did not own the copyright. Pre-prints are also a good option, but you won't own the changes made in review if you transfer copyright (for a journal that is not open access).
- greeneggs 9y ago
  There are many examples of articles where the publisher does not own the copyright; any article written by US government scientists is not subject to copyright. Preprints are an excellent option, and every field should make distributing preprints at the standard servers (Arxiv, Biorxiv, etc.) the norm. The broad visibility from open preprint servers seems to be evolving into a different kind of peer review, to the extent that if, in my field, I see a published article with no arXiv preprint I wonder if the authors are trying to hide something.
iamleppert 9y ago
It’s not that easy. They own the network. It’s like saying “It’s a shame we have allowed Verizon and AT&T to own all our communication.” They own infrastructure and cell towers and such but these publishers own mindshare and they have people’s attention and that’s the whole point. You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). Sad but true.
- landryraccoon 9y ago
  > You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). If this is true it reflects poorly on academia and science (insofar as science is an organized activity). Shouldn’t research be judged by its own merits, and the results it produces against verifiable goals and not the popularity contest of competing journals? IMHO to the extent that what you are saying is true, it’s honestly understandable and a little justified that the public is skeptical of academic science. You’re saying it’s in large part a popularity contest.
  - shaki-dora 9y ago
    There are thousands of papers published each month in some fields. Are you going to read and evaluate them all? No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process). Elsevier is earning money because they have created a structure of evaluation that's not entirely garbage, and that is self-reinforcing. It might be good to replace them with a non-profit approach, but isn't easy.
    - landryraccoon 9y ago
      > Are you going to read and evaluate them all? Elsevier doesn't read or evaluate them either. They use academic peer reviewers who don't have any equity or salary from Elsevier. > No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. None of those people are paid by Elsevier. > That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process). No, the publishing system provides brands. If Elsevier actually curated, hired and paid a fair salary to the peer reviewers and researchers who actually performed and evaluate the research I think you would be right. But it still seems to me they're purely a marketing middleman that takes public funding and public laborers and turns a private profit.
jpeloquin 9y ago
In the US, all research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be made publicly available on PubMed Central after a delay of up to 12 months (https://publicaccess.nih.gov/ https://publicaccess.nih.gov/). This is a good thing, but no embargo would be so much better. It's difficult to change this situation because the journal subscription fees are paid from university budgets and are invisible to academics. Authors and editors benefit from affiliation with prestigious journals' brands. The university library system and the taxpayer pays the cost. Academics also pay a cost in wasted time wrestling with journal paywalls, but that will go away only decades after a complete switch to open access. Open Access is definitely the right thing to do, but the economic incentives are aligned against it. Since there are ~ 300 applicants per open faculty position these days every bit of self-promotion is perceived to be life-or-death for one's career.

lewis500 9y ago

Scholars can often make their work free via pre-print. The issue is that the published version isn't free, and the pre-print is hard to find and often not as nice looking. I made a github repo of my last paper published in an Elsevier journal. This was cool because I could put the latex and simulation code for others to copy. https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths https://github.com/lewis500/distribution-of-trip-lengths The final version differs a little bit because they had a copy-editor go through and make some good improvements, even after the referees made their comments. Interestingly, the journal was fine with my linking to the repo within the text of the paper, as a way to share the code. There is nothing like real open access though. This journal has wonderful typesetting and such and is totally free: https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860 https://www.jtlu.org/index.php/jtlu/article/view/835/860 It's funny what tricks they use to justify their existence. Always emailing me about bizarre author features no one will use. Makes me sad to think of the engineers sitting in a big room year-on-year polishing features no one will use.

horsecaptin 9y ago
It is free if they get publish by PLOS.
- sghi 9y ago
  Are you sure? I'm nearly certain that PLOS is a publisher that charges manuscript charges for OA papers - most do.
  - greeneggs 9y ago
    PLOS One fees are $1500 per paper. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
  - horsecaptin 9y ago
    Ahh, I'm sorry. I meant Open Access - as in free to read upon publication. I did some more digging. Turns out they have some leeway for submission fees under some conditions: https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance https://www.plos.org/fee-assistance
AndrewGYork 9y ago
In the same spirit, our lab is experimenting with a new approach to scientific publishing via Github: https://twitter.com/AndrewGYork/status/965765089373515776 https://twitter.com/AndrewGYork/status/965765089373515776 No paywall, no delay, straight to the web. Open data, open code, interactive/animated figures. Transparent, rolling peer review, version control, CC-BY license, citable DOIs. I was worried no one would read it, but it turns out science twitter is awesome. Very positive experience, so far.
- greeneggs 9y ago
  That's good, but it is not a substitute for preprint servers. In particular, preprint servers are archival and more discoverable.
  - AndrewGYork 9y ago
    Sounds like we're pulling in the same direction re:improving scientific publishing. At the risk of debating an ally, do you mean to imply that preprint servers are "more archival"? I'm guessing you're familiar with CERN/Zenodo; you trust bioArxiv's continued existence more than CERN's? I rate them as similar, arguably with an edge to CERN. My experience with publishing is that discoverability is a stronger function of advertising and (especially) getting cited than the publication venue. I do agree that bioarxiv and arxiv are nice advertising venues, but there are lots of ways to skin that cat.
    - greeneggs 9y ago
      I'm actually only familiar with the arXiv, for physics and computer science research. I don't know much about biorxiv or Zenodo, but they both seem much better than a personal website or github page. The arXiv has overlay sites, such as http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/ or https://scirate.com/ https://scirate.com/ , that improve discoverability over the basic arXiv interface; for example, you can browse all the papers in a given area posted in the last two months, sorted by some proxy for "interest." Of course there is also Google Scholar, and perhaps there are better ways.

btrettel 9y ago

PhD student here. I think refusing to transfer copyright is a better option in fields that have no open access journals, like my field. While I haven't published in a journal yet, the discussions I had with a few representatives of publishers at a conference suggested that some publishers will accept only a license to print if you ask. One publisher even showed me an example of an article where they did not own the copyright. Pre-prints are also a good option, but you won't own the changes made in review if you transfer copyright (for a journal that is not open access).

greeneggs 9y ago
There are many examples of articles where the publisher does not own the copyright; any article written by US government scientists is not subject to copyright. Preprints are an excellent option, and every field should make distributing preprints at the standard servers (Arxiv, Biorxiv, etc.) the norm. The broad visibility from open preprint servers seems to be evolving into a different kind of peer review, to the extent that if, in my field, I see a published article with no arXiv preprint I wonder if the authors are trying to hide something.

iamleppert 9y ago

It’s not that easy. They own the network. It’s like saying “It’s a shame we have allowed Verizon and AT&T to own all our communication.” They own infrastructure and cell towers and such but these publishers own mindshare and they have people’s attention and that’s the whole point. You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). Sad but true.

landryraccoon 9y ago
> You’re not going to risk your career and publish in some unknown journal (for most people). If this is true it reflects poorly on academia and science (insofar as science is an organized activity). Shouldn’t research be judged by its own merits, and the results it produces against verifiable goals and not the popularity contest of competing journals? IMHO to the extent that what you are saying is true, it’s honestly understandable and a little justified that the public is skeptical of academic science. You’re saying it’s in large part a popularity contest.
- shaki-dora 9y ago
  There are thousands of papers published each month in some fields. Are you going to read and evaluate them all? No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process). Elsevier is earning money because they have created a structure of evaluation that's not entirely garbage, and that is self-reinforcing. It might be good to replace them with a non-profit approach, but isn't easy.
  - landryraccoon 9y ago
    > Are you going to read and evaluate them all? Elsevier doesn't read or evaluate them either. They use academic peer reviewers who don't have any equity or salary from Elsevier. > No, you want some sort of structure where you have people you trust do some sorting. None of those people are paid by Elsevier. > That's what the publishing system does. (Plus the editing process). No, the publishing system provides brands. If Elsevier actually curated, hired and paid a fair salary to the peer reviewers and researchers who actually performed and evaluate the research I think you would be right. But it still seems to me they're purely a marketing middleman that takes public funding and public laborers and turns a private profit.

jpeloquin 9y ago

In the US, all research funded by the National Institutes of Health must be made publicly available on PubMed Central after a delay of up to 12 months (https://publicaccess.nih.gov/ https://publicaccess.nih.gov/). This is a good thing, but no embargo would be so much better. It's difficult to change this situation because the journal subscription fees are paid from university budgets and are invisible to academics. Authors and editors benefit from affiliation with prestigious journals' brands. The university library system and the taxpayer pays the cost. Academics also pay a cost in wasted time wrestling with journal paywalls, but that will go away only decades after a complete switch to open access. Open Access is definitely the right thing to do, but the economic incentives are aligned against it. Since there are ~ 300 applicants per open faculty position these days every bit of self-promotion is perceived to be life-or-death for one's career.