4 ms·

To be fair, it is the norm in the scientific community to publish research in Journals... and while the Journals make money off it they do provide some level of

by gph 13y ago

To be fair, it is the norm in the scientific community to publish research in Journals... and while the Journals make money off it they do provide some level of editorial standards. What would have been the alternative here, self-publishing? I suppose that would be possible for NASA, but it would be highly unprecedented. And besides, like the top comment says, some of these papers aren't actually done by NASA scientists, but others using NASA's data.

Blahah 13y ago
The correct thing to do would have been to publish the article as open access. That means nobody has to pay to read it. It costs a small extra fee from the authors to the journal to make it open access forever.
- morpher 13y ago
  I don't know about other fields, but in physics, the "small extra fee" is $1700 - $2700.[1] Many researchers prefer to spend this money on actual research. Fortunately, most physics journals also allow the author to retain publishing rights (just not on the final typeset version). So, sites like arxiv.org provide a better alternative. Free-to-reasearcher publishing in a prestigious journal plus free-to-researcher-and-public publishing elsewhere. [1] http://publish.aps.org/edannounce/CC-launch-press-release http://publish.aps.org/edannounce/CC-launch-press-release
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    >Many researchers prefer to spend this money on actual research. Compared to the cost to license journal access from Elsevier and the other parasites 3k per published item is cheap. The problem being that it comes from your grant funds instead of the Uni's general fund, or the Dep't funds.
  - rflrob 13y ago
    When you compare that small extra fee to the "color figure fee" (for Science, I think it's ~$700 for the first +$200 per figure thereafter), the difference starts to become negligible compared to just publishing in an OA journal.
- jedbrown 13y ago
  Almost all publishers allow authors to distribute their own versions (not using journal typesetting) and government contractors (in the agencies I'm familiar with) are required to include the following clause on submissions. """ The U.S. Government retains for itself, and others acting on its behalf, a paid-up nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in said article to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government. """ After a paper is accepted, the journals sends a copyright assignment form. The legal office at the lab will then neuter the assignment by crossing out sections and inserting permissions before signing it. The journals are not in a position to object. Universities should emulate this practice.
zzleeper 13y ago
Make it into a rule that anything funded with govt money must be dual published: an open access version, and a journal version that helps the scientists' CVs The usual counter-argument is "the journals won't take that, they want exclusive rights or nothing!", but given that a lot of research is funded directly or indirectly with public funds (i.e. a grant or just working at a public university), then that argument seems weak
SeanLuke 13y ago
Journals (that is, the publishers) do not provide editorial standards. Editorial boards provide editorial standards. This is an important distinction, because while journals make money (ideally), editorial boards do not make money. They are pro bono. The services a journal's publisher provides are largely (1) possible copy-editing (2) management and workflow tools (3) paper publication and electronic distribution and archiving and (4) access to an important brand name ("Science", or "PAMI"). Historically these have been important services, but whether they will continue to be is something that every research community has to decide soon. There are a variety of alternative journal business models, such as those found in JAIR, JMLR, PLOS, etc.
betterunix 13y ago
"while the Journals make money off it they do provide some level of editorial standards" Quite a few journals have volunteer editors and volunteer reviewers; publishers are contributing almost nothing to the quality of papers or of research.
- ggchappell 13y ago
  > Quite a few journals have volunteer editors and volunteer reviewers .... In my experience, all of them do. That is, all of the academic journals.
xioxox 13y ago
Coincidently, I had a paper published in Science last week (coincidently using NASA facilities, but do note that I am not based in the US). Science allowed me to put a copy of the paper on the free-to-access preprint site, arxiv.org. This wasn't the final typeset and corrected version of the paper, but a version of the submitted proof. These authors could have done something similar, though there are some differences in practices between the different scientific sub-communities. In some subjects, virtually every paper is posted to arxiv.org. Earth sciences appears to be one of those subjects where they don't do that.

by gph 13y ago

Blahah 13y ago

The correct thing to do would have been to publish the article as open access. That means nobody has to pay to read it. It costs a small extra fee from the authors to the journal to make it open access forever.

morpher 13y ago
I don't know about other fields, but in physics, the "small extra fee" is $1700 - $2700.[1] Many researchers prefer to spend this money on actual research. Fortunately, most physics journals also allow the author to retain publishing rights (just not on the final typeset version). So, sites like arxiv.org provide a better alternative. Free-to-reasearcher publishing in a prestigious journal plus free-to-researcher-and-public publishing elsewhere. [1] http://publish.aps.org/edannounce/CC-launch-press-release http://publish.aps.org/edannounce/CC-launch-press-release
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  >Many researchers prefer to spend this money on actual research. Compared to the cost to license journal access from Elsevier and the other parasites 3k per published item is cheap. The problem being that it comes from your grant funds instead of the Uni's general fund, or the Dep't funds.
- rflrob 13y ago
  When you compare that small extra fee to the "color figure fee" (for Science, I think it's ~$700 for the first +$200 per figure thereafter), the difference starts to become negligible compared to just publishing in an OA journal.
jedbrown 13y ago
Almost all publishers allow authors to distribute their own versions (not using journal typesetting) and government contractors (in the agencies I'm familiar with) are required to include the following clause on submissions. """ The U.S. Government retains for itself, and others acting on its behalf, a paid-up nonexclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in said article to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the Government. """ After a paper is accepted, the journals sends a copyright assignment form. The legal office at the lab will then neuter the assignment by crossing out sections and inserting permissions before signing it. The journals are not in a position to object. Universities should emulate this practice.

zzleeper 13y ago

Make it into a rule that anything funded with govt money must be dual published: an open access version, and a journal version that helps the scientists' CVs The usual counter-argument is "the journals won't take that, they want exclusive rights or nothing!", but given that a lot of research is funded directly or indirectly with public funds (i.e. a grant or just working at a public university), then that argument seems weak

SeanLuke 13y ago

Journals (that is, the publishers) do not provide editorial standards. Editorial boards provide editorial standards. This is an important distinction, because while journals make money (ideally), editorial boards do not make money. They are pro bono. The services a journal's publisher provides are largely (1) possible copy-editing (2) management and workflow tools (3) paper publication and electronic distribution and archiving and (4) access to an important brand name ("Science", or "PAMI"). Historically these have been important services, but whether they will continue to be is something that every research community has to decide soon. There are a variety of alternative journal business models, such as those found in JAIR, JMLR, PLOS, etc.

betterunix 13y ago

"while the Journals make money off it they do provide some level of editorial standards" Quite a few journals have volunteer editors and volunteer reviewers; publishers are contributing almost nothing to the quality of papers or of research.

ggchappell 13y ago
> Quite a few journals have volunteer editors and volunteer reviewers .... In my experience, all of them do. That is, all of the academic journals.

xioxox 13y ago

Coincidently, I had a paper published in Science last week (coincidently using NASA facilities, but do note that I am not based in the US). Science allowed me to put a copy of the paper on the free-to-access preprint site, arxiv.org. This wasn't the final typeset and corrected version of the paper, but a version of the submitted proof. These authors could have done something similar, though there are some differences in practices between the different scientific sub-communities. In some subjects, virtually every paper is posted to arxiv.org. Earth sciences appears to be one of those subjects where they don't do that.