Slashdot Mirror


Dutch Academics Declare Research Free-For-All

houghi writes "The register reports how the Dutch open up their research to the rest of the world. It goes on to tell that commercial scientific publishers such as Elsevier Science are not happy with it. Will other countries and universities follow, or will they stick to the idea that knowledge is a commodity?"

10 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. knowledge is power by UlfGabe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    like i said, giving up all of these smarts is the best thing for the world. screw those journals.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
    1. Re:knowledge is power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Established scientific journals are actually of great value, because what is published in these is supposed to be rigorously reviewed by other experts in the field. The legitimacy this provides is precisely the reason why scientists often pay a journal large amounts to have something published (clearly, scientists recognize their value, even though the Slashdot crowd does not).

      The fact that many journals are struggling economically these days is not a good thing. And the fact that the information is not "free" does not mean that the information is closed off to the public. It just means that you (or your university, company etc.) need to contribute a small amount to part of the scientific process in order to access it.

      Anyone who has ever written a scientific article knows that citing something you've pulled of some internet site does not carry much weigth. I'm not saying this Dutch solution is just "some internet site" (the article does no give much detail); I'm just making a general statement about the important role played by scientific journals.

  2. Make the world a better place by CVD1979 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I personally belief that freeing knowledge will be a first step to a much better world. "Beware for he who wishes to keep knowledge from you, because in his heart, he wants to control you." - Brother Lal, Peacekeepers (from the game Alpha Centauri, not the most credible quotes but there you are)

    When knowledge is a commodity, you'll see a vast upsurge in new knowledge. Well, at least when Google starts to index all the available knowledge, of course.

    --
    "Want some rye? 'Course you do!" - Return to Zork
  3. Salute the Dutch by tacocat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Enough of the fucking Doctor Evil posts...

    The Dutch should be singled out as a great example of the scientific and engineering devolopment entity that made the Renaissance possible. Without the open participation and sharing of knowledge social and cultural progress would be at a standstill.

    If you don't believe me, think where we would be without the Guttenburg printing press or how much information was flowing on the internet when it first came out and was an open community of academians and researchers.

    When commercial jet airlines first developed, the BOAC had a plane called the Comet. It was the first plane to experience problems with metal fatigue and stress cracks. The industry at that time was very involved in finding solutions to problems and making better planes. As the direct result of this, the companies involved would share any and all information available in terms of problems and solutions in order to develop the entire industry rather than attempt to promote their own agendas.

    This is a significant, albeit old, example of the synergy that can exist when information is shared freely rather than traded as a commodity. Unfortunately US industry, judicial, and legislation seem to have forgotten some of these lessons.

    These Dutch aren't so "Freaky Deaky" but truely a credit and an example. Knowing the US, we'll probably bomb them because of some bullshit Patriot Act IP terrorist clause. The contrast makes me ill.

    1. Re:Salute the Dutch by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      Knowing the US, we'll probably bomb them because of some bullshit Patriot Act IP terrorist clause.
      Bombing, perhaps. The USA army has planned to invade the Netherlands in case a US soldier is tried in the internation court in the Hague.

      --

      I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  4. headline incorrect by lovebyte · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not all research papers, but only research papers already available for free to everyone. I quote:
    DAREnet harvests all digital available material from the local repositories, making it searchable. But it limits the harvest to those objects that are full content available to everyone. Tollgated objects (e.g. publications at publishers who only allow access through expensive licenses) can only be found in the local repository.
    Let's not forget that most scientific papers are not available for free.

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

    1. Re:headline incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not all research papers, but only research papers already available for free to everyone. [..] Let's not forget that most scientific papers are not available for free.

      I am working at one of the involved universities, and since a few years ago we do have an official policy of never signing over any copyrights to publishers in preparation of this move.

      In reality things don't work that way: since the university still judges our productivity by tracking publications, we do sign any form we have to to get our stuff into the important journals. Both the university and the big publishers have been ignoring this inconsistency for some years. As you may have noted, I am posting AC because I am terrified of publisher's copyright lawyers.

      This way of measuring productivity is simply wrong: I never directly use the library anymore. I depend completely on Google Scholar. On my computer Google Scholar includes the university subscriptions to publishers, of course, but publications of the last 5 years are usually also available for free.

      Most of my publications are freely available online, and they are representative of the things I have been doing over the last decade. They are also the things that get referenced most often. One usually writes two or three versions of essentially the same story in a period of 2-4 years, and the best one ends up in an article (and will never be read, and rarely referenced).

  5. Re:Taxpayers' money by jurt1235 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The information was already freely available only the print was done by Elsevier ea which charge for the distribution cost (like GPL: Information is free, but someone is allowed to charge you for the distribution cost).
    The real bad part about the magazine prints is that the distribution cost is very high, the selection of articles is done by a editor who has to keep a certain format, resulting in a medium interesting magazine which is mainly sold to companies and schools.
    The real advantage of a system like darenet (at moment when it is not being /.ed) is the ability to find all the articles which did not make it into the magazines, and it is better seachrable. The last point is way interesting for everybody in the scientific world who had to go through magazine indices to find the information relevant to his or her project. It will hopefully prevent more double work and give more scientific progress.

    --

    My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
  6. The way to do collaborative research is changing by HuguesT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Disclaimer, I'm a researcher.

    In the old days if you wanted to read a particular paper in a journal your library didn't carry you had to contact one of the authors and ask for a reprint of the article, which you would receive by snail-mail a few weeks later.

    Now you just look it up on Google, most of the time it's there, or the author will send you a PDF a few hours later.

    The main contribution of journals to research is no longer diffusion, now people usually don't go to the library to read a journal. They receive a summary of the month's issue by email and then go and consult it online. Clearly this could be replaced by informal web publication just as easily.

    However the editorial board work is still essential. They make sure the peer-review process runs smoothly and that each paper looks nice in the end. This is not so easily replaced, even though the editors do a volunteer job.

    What is definitely not clear is why journal should be allowed to charge scientist huge premiums for the privilege of having those same scientist work for them for free.

    Over the next few years we should see the reactive journal boards realize this, and propose a very cheap online-only service. The IEEE is already thinking about this very hard. When others realize this works fine, the era of expensive printed journal will simply come to an end.

    Next will be the issue of books. Scientists are already realizing that it is now extremely cheap to self-publish. Even a top-quality, 500 pages book costs less than $40 to print in small quantities. Yet publishing houses typically sell them $200 a piece or more. Then they go out of print but since the publisher has the copyright everybody is screwed.

    For conferences, self-publishing is now more cost effective, and authors get to keep their copyright. Soon the era of expensive conference proceedings will also come to an end.

    The last remaining bastion will be reference books or textbooks. These will remain in print for the next few years, because people appreciate having a nice book in hand rather than reading hundreds of pages online, but as the cost, speed and quality of desktop printers improve, we should see a new era of freely available, high-quality online textbooks. There are lots of them online already, ready for printing.

    All of this will be good for science. No one will be able to claim in a paper they didn't know about so and so's work and don't have access to it. It will be increasingly easy to do dilettante science without the backing of a huge academic institution.

    People will be able to follow a field of science extremely easily. Cross-fertilization will become the obvious way to make progress.

    I can't wait, and I want to make that happen.

  7. Reviewers work for free by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I don't know how much you know about academic publishing, but the reviewers for even the expensive journals work for free. Basically, it's professors doing all the research AND all the reviewing, they get no money for either, and the journal sells back all this content to those very same academics for incredibly huge sums. (In some cases thousands of $ for a quarterly journal.) Really, it's absurd.

    The barrier to a better system is that many of the established "high prestige" journals are the culprits who are skimming money from universities in this way, and getting in the way of open communication among researchers. What's needed is for the top reviewers and submitters to emigrate en masse to more responsible academic publishers. Yeah, unlikely - unless something major like this goes down and kick-starts the process.