5 ms·

Interesting how they don't use the word "open" even once in that article, whereas the Nobel prize winning scientist makes that a cornerstone of his proposed sol

Interesting how they don't use the word "open" even once in that article, whereas the Nobel prize winning scientist makes that a cornerstone of his proposed solution: There is a better way, through the new breed of open-access journals that are free for anybody to read, and have no expensive subscriptions to promote. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-jou...

aet 13y ago
Isn't he promoting his own new open access journal? http://www.elifesciences.org http://www.elifesciences.org
- rfrey 13y ago
  Is he promoting "expensive subscriptions" to his journal? Because that's what he opposes. Life isn't an easter-egg hunt for hypocrisy.
  - PeterWhittaker 13y ago
    From FTA: "Schekman is the editor of eLife... The papers are free for anyone to read". So in answer to your question, "No".
    - aet 13y ago
      He is promoting his "own" open access journal. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just trying to understand the comment above about not mentioning "open"
      - PeterWhittaker 13y ago
        Sounds good. I have no problem with anyone saying "this is a bad thing, I have a better one, check it out" - so long as they are honest and open about it - which this guy appears to be. It's sort of like Linus and his "I've written a controller, check it out" email, eh? :->
bengillies 13y ago
It's probably worth pointing out that open access, while important, isn't really relevant to this discussion as publishers like Nature already embrace open access. (disclaimer, I work for Digital Science, which is owned by the company that owns Nature)
- dekhn 13y ago
  Drop the paywall. Then we can talk about Nature and open access.
- ihnorton 13y ago
  It's probably worth pointing out that open access, while important, isn't really relevant to this discussion as publishers like Nature already embrace open access. Uh, I just tried accessing a random article in Nature and hit the $32/article paywall. So no, don't think so.
  - eli 13y ago
    I think Science articles are free one year after they're published.
    - rmk2 13y ago
      Just in case anybody wants to read a bit more about this: This is Green Open Access, which usually means that the publication is blocked for a while, but usually doesn't cost the author (or their institution) anything extra. The other option is Gold Open Access, which, depending on journal, can get rather pricey, but makes the article openly available immediately. → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Implementation_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Implementation_pra...
    - mturmon 13y ago
      Yes. Science and Nature are different in this regard. Science also has much lower subscription fees, probably because it's run by a nonprofit, where Nature is for-profit.

aet 13y ago

Isn't he promoting his own new open access journal? http://www.elifesciences.org http://www.elifesciences.org

rfrey 13y ago
Is he promoting "expensive subscriptions" to his journal? Because that's what he opposes. Life isn't an easter-egg hunt for hypocrisy.
- PeterWhittaker 13y ago
  From FTA: "Schekman is the editor of eLife... The papers are free for anyone to read". So in answer to your question, "No".
  - aet 13y ago
    He is promoting his "own" open access journal. I'm not saying that is a bad thing. Just trying to understand the comment above about not mentioning "open"
    - PeterWhittaker 13y ago
      Sounds good. I have no problem with anyone saying "this is a bad thing, I have a better one, check it out" - so long as they are honest and open about it - which this guy appears to be. It's sort of like Linus and his "I've written a controller, check it out" email, eh? :->

bengillies 13y ago

It's probably worth pointing out that open access, while important, isn't really relevant to this discussion as publishers like Nature already embrace open access. (disclaimer, I work for Digital Science, which is owned by the company that owns Nature)

dekhn 13y ago
Drop the paywall. Then we can talk about Nature and open access.
ihnorton 13y ago
It's probably worth pointing out that open access, while important, isn't really relevant to this discussion as publishers like Nature already embrace open access. Uh, I just tried accessing a random article in Nature and hit the $32/article paywall. So no, don't think so.
- eli 13y ago
  I think Science articles are free one year after they're published.
  - rmk2 13y ago
    Just in case anybody wants to read a bit more about this: This is Green Open Access, which usually means that the publication is blocked for a while, but usually doesn't cost the author (or their institution) anything extra. The other option is Gold Open Access, which, depending on journal, can get rather pricey, but makes the article openly available immediately. → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Implementation_practices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#Implementation_pra...
  - mturmon 13y ago
    Yes. Science and Nature are different in this regard. Science also has much lower subscription fees, probably because it's run by a nonprofit, where Nature is for-profit.