7 ms·

The term “open access” is misleading and carefully engineered to generate good will, when in fact it should be termed “pay to publish” (as argued quite nicely b

The term “open access” is misleading and carefully engineered to generate good will, when in fact it should be termed “pay to publish” (as argued quite nicely by Brian McGill [1]). As it stands today, OA is mostly a public money sink, a big scheme to drain public money from European countries. Not only are we paying a ridiculous, ungodly amount of money for people to host PDFs on a website, but the entire idea of publishers competing for the quality of their research output (in order to get submissions) has also basically been eradicated and turned meaningless. Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money, and now we are left with a deluge of noise that passes for scientific literature. I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a serious, systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more attractive. If you want open access, ditch the publishers and fund volunteer expert communities to edit and publish their own papers. You can’t have the cake and eat it too. [1] https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2024/04/29/the-state-of-academic-publishing-in-3-graphs-5-trends-and-4-thoughts/ https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2024/04/29/the-state-of...

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
Headline: Japan's push to make all research open access > The term "open access" is misleading and carefully engineered to generate good will, when in fact it should be termed "pay to publish". [1] [1] Seems to be about how OA is done in countries that aren't Japan.
tmalsburg2 2y ago
Japan's initiative is focused on "green open access" which is different from pay-to-publish. I recommend the section titled "Green OA" in the submitted article. Relevant quote: "Japan’s move to greater access to its research is focusing on 'green OA' — in which authors make the author-accepted, but unfinalized, versions of papers available in the digital repositories, says Seiichi. Seiichi says that gold OA — in which the final copyedited and polished version of a paper is made freely available on the journal site — is not feasible on a wide scale. That’s because the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for universities."
- snvzz 2y ago
  >That’s because the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for universities." What is this bullshit? How is copying text around suddenly costly?
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  Green OA is just as meaningless as—-or worse than—-Gold OA. You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the “right” to self-publish the preprint, and they still paywall it. The vast majority of people will find the paywalled version before yours, and anyway there is no guarantee that your preprint is accurate with the final, published version, so most people will still trust the paywalled version more than your PDF. Especially when performing systematic literature reviews where you need to document the sources of your references. The current implementation of OA (any of them) is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy: we convinced ourselves that “publishers are evil” and impossible to get rid of, and now we are paying them so that they don’t have to do their job. We basically retired publishers early with an extra pension, all because everyone “wants to believe” in open access. But guess what? This is not disruptive. OA is just as “capitalist evil” as the usual publishing, or even more so. Do you want to be disruptive? The disrupt. Get rid of the publishers. Or at least constrain funding only to not-for-profits for example.
  - shellac 2y ago
    > You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the “right” to self-publish the preprint, and they still paywall it There's no APC with Green OA, so what money are you talking about? Green OA is regular publishing, but with self archiving. There will be a version freely available, and the publishers aren't paid for that privilege. If you want a route to the death of publishers, green OA is a promising one. (I think the headline ought to emphasise that this is pushing green OA, which is the interesting bit)
    - low_tech_love 2y ago
      I’ve had to pay for the option to publish my preprints in a couple of CS journals. I’ll look into that.
2Gkashmiri 2y ago
https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/ https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/ india's research repository. all phd thesis and everything is here.
- 9dev 2y ago
  You got to love India’s ability to pick the most indiscoverable domain names possible for their projects...
  - datpiff 2y ago
    It's almost as if they're speaking a different language
    - carlob 2y ago
      or 22
- tugberkk 2y ago
  same here in Turkey. https://dergipark.org.tr/en https://dergipark.org.tr/en has a lot of journals free of access. One can also find the phd and msc thesis too in https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
- xvilka 2y ago
  It would be nice to make a simple website that will list those repositories in easily discoverable way per country. Something akin to "Awesome Research" list.
tokai 2y ago
McGill and you got it backwards. Open Access has a quite clear definition.[0] Publishers have co-opeded the term and dopne everything to confuse the issue. All the so-called open access colours are mainly publisher made, to water down the true OA definition. [0] https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/ https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  Sure, but none of that matters if the big publishers are the ones gobbling up the money anyway. For some reason it’s better to pay them a ridiculous amount of money to host PDFs than it is to pay for subscriptions? What’s the difference? Most university libraries have always had access to all the important journals and anyone can go there and do their research. The whole idea that subscription is evil and OA is good is ludicrous. We’re paying the same amount of money (or more) only to get a much, much shittier service, and a torrent of absolute meaningless “research” that only serves to drown out the good ones. PS: And by the way, if you say that “not every country has access to these libraries” then think about whether they have money to pay for APCs.
sharpshadow 2y ago
It's a shame that the public has to pay twice. Tax money pays it in the first place and then we have to pay for it again..
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
> Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money Prestigious journals have very low (single-digit percentage) acceptance rates. One or two rungs down, the standard domain-specific journals are still rigorous, and you need to do substantial work to get published in them. It's a hurdle that any decent graduate student with a good advisor can pass, but it's not as if you can just write anything and get published. There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals. > I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a serious, systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more attractive. Doing a literature review is not that difficult. You begin with a few highly cited papers. Then you look at what papers they reference in the intro. You also look at the list of papers that cite them and sort by the number of citations. You can work in both directions and pretty quickly establish what the important papers in the field are. Notice that the important thing here is to look at citations. Getting a paper into a journal is only the first, most basic step. Peer review is only an initial quality check. Over time, other scientists decide what papers are important and cite them. If a paper racks up 100 citations, that means a lot more than just passing peer review.
- rscho 2y ago
  You are not describing a systematic literature review. Systematic reviews are hell indeed, at least in non-STEM fields.
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  > There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals. Yes, but the point is not that the good journals are not there, it’s that the good ones are drowned out by the absolute humongous amount of garbage that comes out every day. If you do research you know that it’s not so simple like “oh I only read papers from journals X and Y”. Good research comes out everywhere, and if you don’t cite it people (I mean reviewers, if you can call them that) will complain, and anyway you’ll be putting yourself in a bubble which is bad practice. It used to be that journals would do the work for you to separate good from bad research, but nowadays it’s on the researcher to dig through 1000 papers to find a single good one. It’s ridiculous and meaningless. If we’re paying them and making them rich, at least I’d expect them to do their job.
mfld 2y ago
I don't get it. Ditching publishers to fund expert communities? Shouldn't there be some form of organisation that connects those experts, selects some as journal editors, provides infrastructure for submission/review/paper access, etc? If yes, wouldn't "publisher" be suitable term for such an organisation? There exist publishers that, instead of being part of big media outlets, a run by research organizations themselves (e.g. EMBO press). I agree that it would be nice if more would be published there.
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  I mean in the same way communities organize conferences regularly without becoming publishers. Anyway if you want to call them publishers fine, as long as they are not giant behemoths who feed on large amounts of public money to do nothing. At least when publishing was an actual market (instead of being just a money sink) the publishers had to actually do their job to survive.
impendia 2y ago
I am a mathematics researcher. I agree with most of what you say, but > Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money The only pressure I ever get is from editors (i.e., other mathematicians, who make all the final decisions), if I'm taking too long and they want me to hurry up. If a representative of the publisher attempted to pressure me for any reason, then my response would be less than polite. Occasionally I have gotten review requests from "pay to publish" journals which will publish pretty much anything, and which don't have any credibility within the math community. These, I simply delete as spam.
- rscho 2y ago
  Just occasionally? I get at least 3-4 of those daily! They've become seriously annoying, and confused senior professors around me often fall into the trap.
- low_tech_love 2y ago
  I reject the invitations too, but the fact is that they exist, there are (many) people who do them, the papers are published, they come up in searches, and the whole thing becomes a muddy mess. Most people say “we’ll just don’t read/cite them” but the fact is that there is no clear red line; it’s all foggy. In order to look at a paper and say “I will not read you because you are crap” you need to spend some time with it, and if you have 2000 of them, that translates to a lot of wasted time. The reason why journals are supposed to do serious peer review was exactly so that we don’t have to do it ourselves.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  It's possible for pressure to exist at a higher level. The editor simply stops asking reviews from people who reject papers above some threshold rate. Or at even a higher level, the journal replaces the editor who maintains a too low an acceptance rate. These pressures are harder to notice, without population level data.
norswap 2y ago
In CS, it's widely accepted that you can publish your "drafts" publicly. Basically just the real deal without the notices of publication (I guess maybe legally you have to leave some differences in? I never bothered, and I doubt the publishers who everyone kinda hates would dare creating this kind of controversy). As others have pointed out, some countries mandate national or institutional repositories. A good grassroots way out of this is educating researchers to always take one of these options. Let publishers overplay their hand and get crushed. Of course, it would be nicer if regulators realized how ridiculous this all is and crushed them without the need for public outcry, but one may dream.
- contrarian1234 2y ago
  When I published with an Elsevier journal they explained the "draft" thing pretty clearly. They said you retain copyright on whatever you write yourself. But once you have reviewer feedback and incorporate feedback from the journal editor(s) then it's no longer entirely your work and you couldn't distribute it at your own will. You could pay the journal a huge amount of money (in effect for the work done by the editors), and then the paper would be open access. The fees might not be reasonable (it's kind of hard to judge) but the overall logic made sense to me So the first draft before review - the one you wrote all on your own - is what you can put up online. I'm not in CS but I assume the logic is similar in other fields. They also provided a separate link of the final published PDF that you could use to distribute the paper to colleagues and interested parties. This link worked for a sufficiently long period of X amount of days/months. After that it was paywalled and in their garden
  - norswap 2y ago
    Interesting - do you know if they ever went after someone that violated these conditions?
gbnvc 2y ago
No, you can invent this idea that open access is a boogeyman, but it’s flat out corporate lies. This is free speech. I’m allowed to say I think a statement is untrustworthy.
pessimizer 2y ago
> OA is mostly a public money sink, a big scheme to drain public money from European countries. Not only are we paying a ridiculous, ungodly amount of money for people to host PDFs on a website This is a choice that European countries are making that has nothing to do with open access. You can always choose to overpay well-connected insider contractors to accomplish any of the functions of government.
davidparks21 2y ago
I struggle with this question. The editor plays a valuable role and it's not hard to swallow the argument that editors make science better, they're the front line filter. Employing them full time is a core value that the current system provides. I'm wary (but not close minded) to the idea that volunteer orgs could scale to the top echelons of scientific publication, which require a lot of filtering. Perhaps if we look to the conference paper model where funding primarily comes from the conference? The conference brings benefits beyond publishing. In that model publishing equates to financial discount or free entrance to the conference, so it flips the equation.
- eslaught 2y ago
  I work in CS and we do (mostly) conference publishing. I could be wrong, but I don't think PC chairs are paid, by anybody. Maybe they get free housing at the conference, but this is more of a consolation prize given the amount of work involved. Certainly the rank and file PC members don't get anything. I was on one PC mailing list where one of the organizers accidentally let slip that (some) organizers get free housing, and there was a big uproar in the PC. None of us get anything like that. So this is literally a system where the expert reviewers get nothing, and even the chairs in charge do it nearly for free. What part of this needs to cost money? The peer review comes from the community. The exclusivity and filter comes from the community. Even the funding comes from the community, because community members pay to go to the conference. What the publisher does is, as GP noted, mainly to host PDFs on a website and make sure they stay up. That costs something, but nothing like what the licensing fees for these services are (or the so-called "open access" fees that we now pay).
barfbagginus 2y ago
Don't forget the most important OA mode Black OA means hacking journals and making their papers free for all. That's the only OA we need to invest in. Make the BOA ratio into a perfect 1.0, and all other problems with OA vanish.
barfbagginus 2y ago
Gold OA is trash, don't confuse it with true OA modes: 1. Green OA: peer reviewed and free for reader and author; author waives copyright 2. Diamond OA: peer reviewed and free for reader and author; author KEEPS copyright 3. Black OA: free for readers, pirated by hackers; DISREGARDS copyright See my other note where I argue that BOA is the most important one, since it does not depend on state funding or publisher largesse. It simply seizes the knowledge that must be seized.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago

Headline: Japan's push to make all research open access > The term "open access" is misleading and carefully engineered to generate good will, when in fact it should be termed "pay to publish". [1] [1] Seems to be about how OA is done in countries that aren't Japan.

tmalsburg2 2y ago

Japan's initiative is focused on "green open access" which is different from pay-to-publish. I recommend the section titled "Green OA" in the submitted article. Relevant quote: "Japan’s move to greater access to its research is focusing on 'green OA' — in which authors make the author-accepted, but unfinalized, versions of papers available in the digital repositories, says Seiichi. Seiichi says that gold OA — in which the final copyedited and polished version of a paper is made freely available on the journal site — is not feasible on a wide scale. That’s because the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for universities."

snvzz 2y ago
>That’s because the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for universities." What is this bullshit? How is copying text around suddenly costly?
low_tech_love 2y ago
Green OA is just as meaningless as—-or worse than—-Gold OA. You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the “right” to self-publish the preprint, and they still paywall it. The vast majority of people will find the paywalled version before yours, and anyway there is no guarantee that your preprint is accurate with the final, published version, so most people will still trust the paywalled version more than your PDF. Especially when performing systematic literature reviews where you need to document the sources of your references. The current implementation of OA (any of them) is basically a self-fulfilling prophecy: we convinced ourselves that “publishers are evil” and impossible to get rid of, and now we are paying them so that they don’t have to do their job. We basically retired publishers early with an extra pension, all because everyone “wants to believe” in open access. But guess what? This is not disruptive. OA is just as “capitalist evil” as the usual publishing, or even more so. Do you want to be disruptive? The disrupt. Get rid of the publishers. Or at least constrain funding only to not-for-profits for example.
- shellac 2y ago
  > You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the “right” to self-publish the preprint, and they still paywall it There's no APC with Green OA, so what money are you talking about? Green OA is regular publishing, but with self archiving. There will be a version freely available, and the publishers aren't paid for that privilege. If you want a route to the death of publishers, green OA is a promising one. (I think the headline ought to emphasise that this is pushing green OA, which is the interesting bit)
  - low_tech_love 2y ago
    I’ve had to pay for the option to publish my preprints in a couple of CS journals. I’ll look into that.

2Gkashmiri 2y ago

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/ https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/ india's research repository. all phd thesis and everything is here.

9dev 2y ago
You got to love India’s ability to pick the most indiscoverable domain names possible for their projects...
- datpiff 2y ago
  It's almost as if they're speaking a different language
  - carlob 2y ago
    or 22
tugberkk 2y ago
same here in Turkey. https://dergipark.org.tr/en https://dergipark.org.tr/en has a lot of journals free of access. One can also find the phd and msc thesis too in https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
xvilka 2y ago
It would be nice to make a simple website that will list those repositories in easily discoverable way per country. Something akin to "Awesome Research" list.

tokai 2y ago

McGill and you got it backwards. Open Access has a quite clear definition.[0] Publishers have co-opeded the term and dopne everything to confuse the issue. All the so-called open access colours are mainly publisher made, to water down the true OA definition. [0] https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/ https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/

low_tech_love 2y ago
Sure, but none of that matters if the big publishers are the ones gobbling up the money anyway. For some reason it’s better to pay them a ridiculous amount of money to host PDFs than it is to pay for subscriptions? What’s the difference? Most university libraries have always had access to all the important journals and anyone can go there and do their research. The whole idea that subscription is evil and OA is good is ludicrous. We’re paying the same amount of money (or more) only to get a much, much shittier service, and a torrent of absolute meaningless “research” that only serves to drown out the good ones. PS: And by the way, if you say that “not every country has access to these libraries” then think about whether they have money to pay for APCs.

sharpshadow 2y ago

It's a shame that the public has to pay twice. Tax money pays it in the first place and then we have to pay for it again..

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

> Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money Prestigious journals have very low (single-digit percentage) acceptance rates. One or two rungs down, the standard domain-specific journals are still rigorous, and you need to do substantial work to get published in them. It's a hurdle that any decent graduate student with a good advisor can pass, but it's not as if you can just write anything and get published. There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals. > I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a serious, systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more attractive. Doing a literature review is not that difficult. You begin with a few highly cited papers. Then you look at what papers they reference in the intro. You also look at the list of papers that cite them and sort by the number of citations. You can work in both directions and pretty quickly establish what the important papers in the field are. Notice that the important thing here is to look at citations. Getting a paper into a journal is only the first, most basic step. Peer review is only an initial quality check. Over time, other scientists decide what papers are important and cite them. If a paper racks up 100 citations, that means a lot more than just passing peer review.

rscho 2y ago
You are not describing a systematic literature review. Systematic reviews are hell indeed, at least in non-STEM fields.
low_tech_love 2y ago
> There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals. Yes, but the point is not that the good journals are not there, it’s that the good ones are drowned out by the absolute humongous amount of garbage that comes out every day. If you do research you know that it’s not so simple like “oh I only read papers from journals X and Y”. Good research comes out everywhere, and if you don’t cite it people (I mean reviewers, if you can call them that) will complain, and anyway you’ll be putting yourself in a bubble which is bad practice. It used to be that journals would do the work for you to separate good from bad research, but nowadays it’s on the researcher to dig through 1000 papers to find a single good one. It’s ridiculous and meaningless. If we’re paying them and making them rich, at least I’d expect them to do their job.

mfld 2y ago

I don't get it. Ditching publishers to fund expert communities? Shouldn't there be some form of organisation that connects those experts, selects some as journal editors, provides infrastructure for submission/review/paper access, etc? If yes, wouldn't "publisher" be suitable term for such an organisation? There exist publishers that, instead of being part of big media outlets, a run by research organizations themselves (e.g. EMBO press). I agree that it would be nice if more would be published there.

low_tech_love 2y ago
I mean in the same way communities organize conferences regularly without becoming publishers. Anyway if you want to call them publishers fine, as long as they are not giant behemoths who feed on large amounts of public money to do nothing. At least when publishing was an actual market (instead of being just a money sink) the publishers had to actually do their job to survive.

impendia 2y ago

I am a mathematics researcher. I agree with most of what you say, but > Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money The only pressure I ever get is from editors (i.e., other mathematicians, who make all the final decisions), if I'm taking too long and they want me to hurry up. If a representative of the publisher attempted to pressure me for any reason, then my response would be less than polite. Occasionally I have gotten review requests from "pay to publish" journals which will publish pretty much anything, and which don't have any credibility within the math community. These, I simply delete as spam.

rscho 2y ago
Just occasionally? I get at least 3-4 of those daily! They've become seriously annoying, and confused senior professors around me often fall into the trap.
low_tech_love 2y ago
I reject the invitations too, but the fact is that they exist, there are (many) people who do them, the papers are published, they come up in searches, and the whole thing becomes a muddy mess. Most people say “we’ll just don’t read/cite them” but the fact is that there is no clear red line; it’s all foggy. In order to look at a paper and say “I will not read you because you are crap” you need to spend some time with it, and if you have 2000 of them, that translates to a lot of wasted time. The reason why journals are supposed to do serious peer review was exactly so that we don’t have to do it ourselves.
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
It's possible for pressure to exist at a higher level. The editor simply stops asking reviews from people who reject papers above some threshold rate. Or at even a higher level, the journal replaces the editor who maintains a too low an acceptance rate. These pressures are harder to notice, without population level data.

norswap 2y ago

In CS, it's widely accepted that you can publish your "drafts" publicly. Basically just the real deal without the notices of publication (I guess maybe legally you have to leave some differences in? I never bothered, and I doubt the publishers who everyone kinda hates would dare creating this kind of controversy). As others have pointed out, some countries mandate national or institutional repositories. A good grassroots way out of this is educating researchers to always take one of these options. Let publishers overplay their hand and get crushed. Of course, it would be nicer if regulators realized how ridiculous this all is and crushed them without the need for public outcry, but one may dream.

contrarian1234 2y ago
When I published with an Elsevier journal they explained the "draft" thing pretty clearly. They said you retain copyright on whatever you write yourself. But once you have reviewer feedback and incorporate feedback from the journal editor(s) then it's no longer entirely your work and you couldn't distribute it at your own will. You could pay the journal a huge amount of money (in effect for the work done by the editors), and then the paper would be open access. The fees might not be reasonable (it's kind of hard to judge) but the overall logic made sense to me So the first draft before review - the one you wrote all on your own - is what you can put up online. I'm not in CS but I assume the logic is similar in other fields. They also provided a separate link of the final published PDF that you could use to distribute the paper to colleagues and interested parties. This link worked for a sufficiently long period of X amount of days/months. After that it was paywalled and in their garden
- norswap 2y ago
  Interesting - do you know if they ever went after someone that violated these conditions?

gbnvc 2y ago

No, you can invent this idea that open access is a boogeyman, but it’s flat out corporate lies. This is free speech. I’m allowed to say I think a statement is untrustworthy.

pessimizer 2y ago

> OA is mostly a public money sink, a big scheme to drain public money from European countries. Not only are we paying a ridiculous, ungodly amount of money for people to host PDFs on a website This is a choice that European countries are making that has nothing to do with open access. You can always choose to overpay well-connected insider contractors to accomplish any of the functions of government.

davidparks21 2y ago

I struggle with this question. The editor plays a valuable role and it's not hard to swallow the argument that editors make science better, they're the front line filter. Employing them full time is a core value that the current system provides. I'm wary (but not close minded) to the idea that volunteer orgs could scale to the top echelons of scientific publication, which require a lot of filtering. Perhaps if we look to the conference paper model where funding primarily comes from the conference? The conference brings benefits beyond publishing. In that model publishing equates to financial discount or free entrance to the conference, so it flips the equation.

eslaught 2y ago
I work in CS and we do (mostly) conference publishing. I could be wrong, but I don't think PC chairs are paid, by anybody. Maybe they get free housing at the conference, but this is more of a consolation prize given the amount of work involved. Certainly the rank and file PC members don't get anything. I was on one PC mailing list where one of the organizers accidentally let slip that (some) organizers get free housing, and there was a big uproar in the PC. None of us get anything like that. So this is literally a system where the expert reviewers get nothing, and even the chairs in charge do it nearly for free. What part of this needs to cost money? The peer review comes from the community. The exclusivity and filter comes from the community. Even the funding comes from the community, because community members pay to go to the conference. What the publisher does is, as GP noted, mainly to host PDFs on a website and make sure they stay up. That costs something, but nothing like what the licensing fees for these services are (or the so-called "open access" fees that we now pay).

barfbagginus 2y ago

Don't forget the most important OA mode Black OA means hacking journals and making their papers free for all. That's the only OA we need to invest in. Make the BOA ratio into a perfect 1.0, and all other problems with OA vanish.

barfbagginus 2y ago

Gold OA is trash, don't confuse it with true OA modes: 1. Green OA: peer reviewed and free for reader and author; author waives copyright 2. Diamond OA: peer reviewed and free for reader and author; author KEEPS copyright 3. Black OA: free for readers, pirated by hackers; DISREGARDS copyright See my other note where I argue that BOA is the most important one, since it does not depend on state funding or publisher largesse. It simply seizes the knowledge that must be seized.