Slashdot Mirror
Royal Society Wants to Keep Science off Web
truckaxle writes "Britain's national academy of science, The Royal Society, which publishes one of the world's oldest journals, Philosophical Transactions, has joined the debate of the publishing of scientific publications on the internet. In a article by the Guardian a spokesman for the Royal Society was quoted as saying: 'We think it conceivable that the journals in some disciplines might suffer. Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?' They believe that internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers."
I believe that the scientific Journal has outlived its usefulness, and will be replaced by ... Slashdot!
But seriously, reviewers are biased and sloppy, as are the editors. The fact that reviews are blind means that they are also unaccountable, which fosters even more bias.
Journals take months or years to respond to a submision, and often as not they respond with a rejection so the submitter has to give up or start the whole process over with another journal. There are so many scandals that one could quote. The whole process seems more designed to support the status quo than to promote knowledge.
I have discussed this with many people in academia and they react not with logic, but with horror that I would dare to question a system that they view almost mystical reverence.
Test 1 2 3 4
Host science on FTP then.
Exchange of ideas or exchange of currency? I'm not really sure which one they don't want hurt.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
I think any webmaster, or volunteer would know that every little bit helps, and if anyone's willing to pay to show appreciation it can make a world of difference.
"You won't eat our meat, but you'll glue with our feet.." --Some cow
Yup, knowledge is only true and valuable when you pay lots of money for it and distribute it to a limited group. Everyone knows that. After all, that's how it's always been. Can't change that now, can we? Heaven forbid the chaos that would ensue if there were a peer reviewed, moderated system like Slashdot to replace our sacred institutions.
(Oh, and yes, some publishers making a good living might lose their monopoly gravy train in the process.)
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
and the information poor get poorer.
They surely can't say that having the information for free prevents it from being exchanged? This is just another *ancient* business model being threatened by the internet.
As a physicist, I depend on the journals and as a matter of fact, I rarely read the bound versions. More often, I use a web service, such as Web Of Science, to search for interesting papers, print the ps files, and read those. As far as making the journals available free on the web? Nah, don't bother, since just about everyone who has a need for journal access already has it either through their employment, university, or library.
You're obsolete. :-)
... (glances at Microsoft)].
It's really quite simple. Adapt or die [well the other alternative is to use your undue influence to make your approach last longer than it naturally would otherwise
How any academic could think that the wide spread distribution of information could HURT academia is beyond me. Me thinks they have other issues on the mind [namely $$$ and power]. Given I've never read anything from their journal [nor consider myself an academic] I can't say I'd miss them if they disappeared. I get enough free shit [decent quality] from citeseer and eprint.iacr.org
The dude has one point though. Random acceptance [or blind] of papers can lead to some low quality material. Once in a while on eprint there are some really lack lustre crypto papers but quite a few are well written and interesting. And they are the sort of things that close minded expensive conference tours (...looking at the IACR conferences...) routinely rejected.
That said though, I've seen some REALLY POOR peer reviewed talks at conferences. Like the Indian students who presented on highly hardware optimized multivariate boolean equations at a SOFTWARE conference. Their talk was so horibly presented as to make me wish I had literally died at the time. Then there were the talks on one time pads at Crypto'03, etc, etc, etc.
Point is, quality material is subjective. The more open your publication is to peer review the more likely you will see quality material. The more close minded and aloof your publication is the less likely you will have insightful or interesting material to publish.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Hurt their six figure salary.
When are people going to realise that the internet made certain "business models"
obsolete.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
It's the way of the Net. The middleman gets cut out, because the producers of real content have found a way to reach audiences without paying a tax to an editor or board. That doesn't mean it isn't a good thing. With scientific papers available on the Net it will no longer be necessary to obtaom journal subscriptions or access to far-away university libraries in order to research a given topic.
This is the spread of free knowledge we're seeing, and I expect it to keep going. After all, information, debate and the freedom of ideas are what science is all about!
They believe that internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
It would not harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers. In fact, it would facilitate the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
It would however, significantly affect the revenue streams of dead tree journal publishers.
Whilst this may have some relevance I still feel that both the internet and journals can have a place in society. People are much more likely to trust a paper published in an old, established journal than on some site they find on the internet, no matter how "reputable", especially if they are not used to the internet and its many delights. While the internet can be used for publishing discoveries quickly, and perhaps publishing discoveries which the journals may not publish, the journals will still publish the most important ones, and as such will still be bought, and will still survive.
harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers
Wait, so having it in a easier form to obtain and be searched would harm the exchange of knowledge? Well here is a easily solution for you: Pay the same amount (or less since no paper) so you can read the same stuff online.
I would be very interested to know how these guys depend on the publishers of exotic journals. Perhaps they get paid in monies and esteem by reviewing articles for them?
Slashdot itself can be seen as a peer-reviewed site, and it is doing quite well i'd say. I would have loved a site like this (but based on 'real' science) when I was doing science.
But maybe the conservqatives fear that their fragile ecosystem of importance, references and reviews would all fall down when the web equalises it. Suddenly bright young studends will have as much esteem as a good-for-nothing professor, and they all fear they are that good-for-nothing.
This space is intentionally staring blankly at you
These guys sound like they think there's a way to stop it. Short of their fellow scientists organizing a formal shunning of research data that's web-published, what could actually prevent a researcher from putting his/her results on the web? Particularly if they get turned down by the journals? If I had devoted a lot of time and effort to some research and couldn't get a journal to publish it, you can bet that I'd publish it in web form rather than just let it rot.
so they ask:
Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?
As a publishing scientist, I would venture another question: "Why should I publish in a journal that is not freely available? Why would I pick a journal that limits its readership?"
Science is produced (by and large) by scientists using public funds. It makes no sense that the results of this research become locked away and unavailable to the public. Scientific results should be available to the public, free of charge. The fact that this also helps foster international collaborations, makes science overall more effective, and levels the playing field between rich and poor nations is also a good thing.
Alternate funding models for the journals and publishers are being pursued. For instance, when a scientist publishes a paper, he could pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Then the article appears online, free to all. Some journals have already implemented such systems. It seems to work fine. At the end of the day, it's always the same people paying (universities and scientists pay for it, using public funds).
So to answer the question "Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?" Just like now, the public will pay for the journals to operate. However, the public should be allowed access to that which they are funding.
They believe that internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
I'm glad these people are taking care to protect their researchers from the dangers of internet publishing.
Not many people seem to realize this, but transfering knowledge across the Internet is very risky, because researchers run the risk of being tangled in the "World Wide Web", and stuck there until freed.
These risks have been known to experts for some time, but the outside world has yet to understand the risks presented in such fine documentaries as "Tron", "The Matrix", and other such cautionary films.
I for one saluate these web-fearing publishers, and applaud them for their socially responsible stance to protect the safety and well being of their researchers.
--
AC
They're not saying they're against free information flow. They are saying that for them it will have a significant impact on the scope of their activities.
Now, while I am not a history major (IANAHM), I seem to recall something about some scientists at a large scientific facility (CERN) that invented this web thingy to exchange scientific data in a timely manner. And, since necessity is the mother of invention, the journals were'nt filling the need of the consumers (scientists).
Anybody know if Sir Tim Berners-Lee is a member of the Royal Scority?
Alan.
If everyone published in the web and not in high brow journals, then the journals would have little or no value. The problem with that is modern world of the PhD program is "publish or perish." If there is no place to publish that is peer reviewed and has the perks of being a closed publication environment, then there is no value in publishing at all for some of these researchers.
I personally think that the current academic and scientific journals will virtually disappear only when someone gets a Noble prize who only published on the web but I don't see that happening for a very long time.
The MPAA/RIAA of science, flailing around at their own loss of relevance.
Pure FUD.
The only thing being threatened is the business model of the journal publishers. Their enterprise was a necessary expense in the age of dead trees, but those days are gone. If online publication makes the free exchange of knowledge between researchers possible, that's a good thing!
But there is a reason for reverence for peer review - as a procedure, it weeds out a lot of bullshit. There are many scandals - but far more successes (the entirety of biology, from the sometime in the early 20th century to the present.) I'm a biologist, so I cannot speak with confidence on the impact in other disciplines, or where the corresponding institutions of peer review may lie on the continuum between old boys network and tireless defenders of the scientific method, for other journals in other disciplines. In Biology, in spite of some failings, the record is overall very good.
The comments by the royal society are nakedly self serving. The fear at the royal society is that organizations like the Public Library of Science will sideline them. This will only happen if organizations like PLoS can maintain the same quality of peer review as the Royal Society (I will assert - so far they are doing better) without charging money. The implicit claim, that free journals deliver a lower quality of review, does not stand up to even cursory examination. I will say (and this is a subjective assertion on my part) that PLoS actually provides a better grade of peer review, and that a system where professional editors preside over large budgets and a permanent base of prestige breeds the sort of cronyism and corruption that the parent post is (legitimately) concerned about.
From a moral standpoint, of COURSE research done at public expense should be freely available to everyone, now that the technology exists to easily do so. In sum: if the royal society doesn't want to adapt to a modern era where real publication costs approach zero, let them be sidelined.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Vested interest.
internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ha! Harm? Why do they think that the Internet was invented? (Okay, so it wasn't invented, technically, but you get the idea) For the purpose of making information widely available! Why only publish in journals, which you have to subscribe to? What if you don't live near where the journal is published? Why should you miss out? Why do they think it will harm exchange of knowledge? People often go around the world in the name of science--with the Internet, their findings can be reported almost instantly! In fact, getting information between scientists, other scientists, and the public would happen faster than ever!
The Internet is here for this purpose--use it!
I believe the free exchange of this information can only help. Yes, there might be some rubbish papers that are introduced, but it is up to the intelligent reader to find correlation in any such document with known facts. Just my two cents worth.
The Royal Society, Britain's national academy of science, yesterday joined the debate about so-called open access to scientific research, warning that making research freely available on the internet as it is published in scientific journals could harm scientific debate.
My immediate reaction to this little tidbit was "How obvious can you make a contradiction?" How does open access harm scientific debate? The research papers are there for other researchers to read and discuss--isn't that the idea?
Then when you read more, there is a case made:
The Royal Society fears it could lead to the demise of journals published by not-for-profit societies, which put out about a third of all journals. "Funders should remember that the primary aims should be to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and wider society," The Royal Society said.
The RS does bring up a good point in one respect--the printed journals could conceivably lose funding due to the lack subscribers, thus actually making the work less accessible. While access to the Internet is becoming more and more common, it isn't universal and thus works published ONLY in electronic form would be accessible only to those with electronic access. Presumably researchers are in positions and facilities that have such access, but in field sites or less developed countries this may not always be the case.
However, to answer the final question asked: "Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?"
Answer: because a printed copy is easier to read as a reference document. Ever try to cut and paste a reference on your computer screen into a actual research notebook?
Yes, electronic copies such as PDFs can be printed, I am well aware of this. It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time. Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Electronic copy makes searching for a particular resource much easier, but if I have the paper copy on the shelf, I don't have to worry about CDs or CD drives going bad, hard drive failures, etc. (Yes, I am aware of the importance of backups, offsite storage, etc.) However, a printed copy isn't concerned with file formats, media formats, etc. Printed words are printed words.
My prediction: electronic records will never completely replace paper. They will be an additional resource, not a replacing resource.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Makers of hiking boots fear that paved roads and automobiles will be bad for the travel industry, because fewer people would then buy hiking boots.
I'm not sure what journals you're submitting to, but the turnover rate for most journals in science are only a few months, and some just a few weeks. As an academic with a wife who works as an editorial co-ordinator for three journals, I think I have a bit of insight into the process, and you've greatly misrepresented the process.
Indeed, the process is flawed, but it's what we have at the moment. Blind reviews are lame, and blind authorship is even worse (where the reviewers have no idea who wrote the paper - but can quickly guess given their reference list). It's the editor's job, however, to ensure that the quality of the reviews are adequate. The peer review process certainly isn't without flaws, but I have yet to see a better process. If you have a better suggestion, please speak up.
On the topic of the availability of scientific publications on the web, this really isn't new. Many researchers already post their papers as pdf on the web, and Scholar Google provides instant access to them. I suspect he trouble seems to be with greedy publishers. Academics are expected to hand over their rights to the publishers to distribute their own work. Many don't look favourably on posting papers for download and are trying to stop it. This is a bit odd. They have the rights to the version of the paper *as it looks in the journal*. So if you take out a comma and repost it, you're fine. Or if you're a LaTeX user, you can create nicer looking documents than the publishers do! There's also the issue of reprints. Once upon a time, if someone requested a copy of the paper, you could send it to them. The publishers even provide a number of hard copies to do so. So many researchers have added a prompt to the user before downloading the document indicating that by clicking the download link to the article, they are requesting a reprint.
Pehaps scientists have discovered Secrets that Man was Not Meant to Know.
Of course Internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers. Any way to distribute information that doesn't cost hundreds of dollars a year per subscription would harm the exchange of knowledge, as anyone drawing a paycheck from this out of date and over priced industry well knows.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
fox is lobbying for current events to be banned from being posted on blogs.
-- lol pwned
Isn't the whole idea of publishing to get the information out there so that it is useful. This is something that I have had a hard time trying to understand. Sometimes it seems that researchers in acadamia claim altruistic motives but then most of the articles are not freely available. That probably has more to do with the publishers, but it just irks me when I use google scholar and I can't find access to the article I want to read. Then I find it somewhere and they want $30 for a copy.
I'm just sayin' it seems anti-progressive and very uncooperative.
Are research papers published on the internet for some reason out of reach of the researchers creating them?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
For my thesis I researched a lot on IEEE transactions, and papers freely available from citeseer. There were a couple of papers that I had to go to the universities to research.
I was lucky to find papers on the internet regarding my research subject. But wanting to take science off the internet would be like locking knowledge from the people.
As a scientist, i'm against that move. Knowledge is for mankind, not for the rich. I'm sure journals can find alternative ways to finance themselves, i.e. paypal, having suscription fees to download very large papers, etc.
Civilization changes when technology changes, and when the information exchange is freer than it ever was, anything that hobbles the exchange of information will simply be bypassed into oblivion.
I'm a robotics grad student - I don't see peer review journals going anywhere soon. Simply put, papers are how an academic earns his or her bread and butter; the more you publish the better your chances at getting that grant. But it's not just as simple as slapping a pdf on your website. The thing that matters is prestige.
If I publish on the web (say, somewhere respectible), I get zero prestige - only the people who are searching for it will find it. If I manage to get my paper into something fancy and ivy-bedecked, such as Nature or IEEE transactions or whatnot, then everyone who's anyone in the field reads it - and they know it has the mark of quality because it got into 'Foo Bar Baz Transactions', a prestigious journal.
Simply put, it's a winnowing out process. People publish in major journals because they are major journals - not because they have no choice. The major journals can afford to be choosy because they can turn away more than they take - which means higher quality papers get published. There's even a ranking system for journal papers that describes their relative auspiciousness.
I'm not going to argue with nutters who claim that established peer review systems serve only to reinforce vested interests in science and engineering. I assure you, the person who disproves quantum physics will win a Nobel prize and a book deal - every journal worth its salt would want to publish that.
Does that mean we can't expect to see journal papers free on the web? As has already been mentioned, most everyone who needs to read a paper already has access to them. The worry for journals is that if they are made free, some smaller institutions might stop paying for them. The publishers have zero to lose by not making it available freely - those that need it will pay for it already, those that don't pay now probably wouldn't pay at any price. And, of course, running a 'F.B.B Trans. doesn't cost nothing.
I can see a situation where journals might take the middle road - offer free downloads to students, but require corporate and research institutions to purchase a subscription. Get the ankle-biters like me hooked early and we'll get the idea that F.B.B. Trans. journal is indispensible to our work and convince our workplace to purchase it!
-Kell Bengal
i heard of someone who downloaded over twenty ebooks on programming c and c++. what a scoundrel, knowledge wasn't meant to be free
The Royal Society does not condone free exchange of information... In other news, Microsoft said they won't open the source of Windows XP under GPL... Nothing to see here... Move along!
You make some good points. However, I don't agree with this:
Answer: because a printed copy is easier to read as a reference document. Ever try to cut and paste a reference on your computer screen into a actual research notebook?
Well that's not what happens in real life. I know of exactly one professor and zero graduate students that would ever do that. It is much, much easier to print off a single page of a PDF than to go to the library and photocopy the required page.
It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time.
Actually it can easily be argued that printing papers from the internet saves ressources compared to paper copies. About 5-6 years ago, we used to get the print versions of some key journals. However once the journals were online it was obvious how silly the print version was. I would only read, at most, 20% of the articles in a given issue. I would only want to keep a few of those. It is more economical to print the few articles I really want, rather than to have a print version with hundreds of pages that I will never even read. Speaking of time, the internet articles were available months before the print versions. That's a huge savings of time and paper.
Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Again, that's not what I've observed in my lab and others. Inevitably, a lab will only have a few journals. What's the chance that the paper you need today happens to be in a journal you subscribe to? With thousands of journals out there, the chance is low. I read articles from at least a hundred different sources. Not all those journals can be close at hand in paper form. However, with the net they are all close at hand (especially with the usage of DOIs, it's very fast to get the article you want).
Again, I'm not trying to be mean or argumentative. I'm just saying that having journals online has completely changed the way I interact with the literature... it's a highly positive change.
I use PubMed regularily to search millions of journal articles relating to biology, and only about 10% of the abstracts contain a link to a "free" version of the full article. Often the abstract contains enough information such that this isn't necessary, but sometimes the pertinent information in the conclusion is missing entirely from the abstract. To access the article without being a subscriber it typically costs $50-$100 to get a copy of the PDF! I am not making a profit off of this so I'm not sure why they expect me to pay that much. I would certainly love free access, as-is, I have to bug someone with access such as a doctor or university student friend to get the PDF for me (as their organizations have subscriptions). I wouldn't even mind paying a reasonable fee, but the current rates are anything but reasonable.
Yes, electronic copies such as PDFs can be printed, I am well aware of this. It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time.
Do you have even the faintest idea how much many of these journal subscriptions cost? Several thousand dollars is common. You could easily pay someone to print and bind a free electronic version for you (thus entirely negating your "time" argument) and still save thousdands of dollars per year per journal.
because we all kmow the internet was first invented for the transfer of spam, not science. duhhhhh.
Now, is the delivery format really the problem here, or is it simply a case of dollars and sense? Is the concept of charging for access to content -- whatever the delivery vehicle -- completely foreign to the content publishers?
Sometimes I read this kind of thing and wonder if I'm in the wrong career.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Put google ads on it or something and let everyone share in the exchange of knowledge. Not that its the best way, but its better than charging for a subscription and letting only people who know about the journal and read through every one find what they are looking for.
I find it laughable that science of all things would be calling for changes in the way people communicate and share information to be held back.
The way science is funded needs changing, not the way people share information. The most information and sharing of findings the better.
While some may believe journals filter out sub-standard research, you'd be surprised how many TERRIBLE articles appear in WELL RESPECTED journals. At least this is my experience in my own subject of economics / management.
Who told the Royal Society about the web? I think we should keep them off the web instead. What would they rather put on the web? Intelligent Design? Scientology?
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
How much published in this journal (and other journals) is actually based on the scientific method versus "notions"? Having all journals online - free of charge would enable millions to scan articles in journal and decide what's bullshit and what's not.
As well, if the journals were free online - then people would see the advertising - for example drug companies advertising in "medical" journals - which may surprise consumers.
If the M.I.T. can put all of its 10,000 courses online free of charge - it's hard to rationalize that "It Can't Be Done" by journals (which are likely subsizided by tax money) ! By the way M.I.T. puts it all up for free use - videos, manuals, projects, lectures and so forth. http://ocw.mit.edu/index.html
Wasn't the web invented in the first place by scientists so they could more easily share information?
Complain about the patent system or complain about publishing scientific journals on the internet. If you complain about both, you're just a jackass.
My God, and perhaps the paper, pen and pencil will be used for fuel to power e-mail!
There will be a niche for peer-reviewed communication in science, and the smart journals will adapt. End of story.
it looks quite impossible to think that people think that making knowledge available for everyone is going to stop researchers to exchange information. My teachers at the university always tell me to look at some articles posted in arxiv.org because they're faster to find and much faster to publish, as a publication in a peer-review basis spend a lot of time, and after all, they're going to be published on the big scientific publications, such as PRL. Some which are not ready for a free knowledge just try to stop the spreading of knowledge, as big vendors try to stop open-source software.
The internet is the great leveler. As more services appears and more info, it will be easier for poor countries to come on board. But if you have a current monopoly AND wish to maintain it, then you must limit who has access to the information. So yes, the request makes total sense.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
But there is a reason for reverence for peer review - as a procedure, it weeds out a lot of bullshit.
Yeah, but that doesn't have to turn into a binary decision: publish or not. Furthermore, there is no need for a small body of people to do the judging, in particular since a lot of those people are selected by fame; there are Nobel prize winners whom I wouldn't trust to recommend a dinner mint, let alone have any kind of competent judgement in the sciences.
Modern technology will greatly change the way scientific results are reported, evaluated, and reviewed. The traditional journal is already obsolete; it will just take a few decades for the scientists that like the current system to either realize it or retire.
After we ban Science, lets ban math, then music.
Hell, lets just ban all information from 'the net', so that 'the society' can meter out knowledge to those that it feels worthy.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What is this, Backwards Day?!
--Rob
Towards the Singularity.
First off, most exchange of information leading up to the publication is electronic anyway. So why NOT publish electronically? After a paper is published, the original article should never be tampered with, though corrections can be indicated. The authors paper, right or wrong, needs to be preserved.
However, due to demands for speed in publishing breakthrough science, peer REVIEW suffers. Except for the journal Organic Synthesis, no other journals require peers to replicate the procedure/results of a paper. So quality suffers.
A journal could institute peer POSTVIEW, by which scientists who attempt to replicate the science can support or detract the original claims. Perhaps then scientists will include more (and more accurate) details of their work. And the postviews will keep the scientists honest.
On an unrelated note, I was always bothered that journals retained copyright over the hard work of the scientists. We need good OPEN SOURCE journals.
Be heard || Be herd
Horses, mules or camels are still the only viable means of transportation in many areas of the world. So, cars never really replaced horses. But...
Backup problems will cease to be serious when you keep your work on a sort of world P2P RAID ( of which your home server probably will be a part ), and read / work from your wireless tablet. The distributed paradigm.
Soon, on a tablet real close to you.
"... internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers."
Internet publishing is exchanging knowledge. Thus, exchanging knowledge would harm the exchange of knowledge, which is a paradox
If you want to say "As dead tree format publishers, we think that Internet publishing hurts dead tree format publishing and therefore internet publishing should be stopped," that's fine. Don't try and feed us some bullshit about how the Internet (whose one and only purpose for existance is information exchange) will hurt information exchange. Just just come out and say it: "We hate the fact that the Internet makes us redundant. Someone prop up our business model for us!"
Sorry - this is plain wrong. I am also a physicist, at Cambridge University. Even though we have access to the physical journals (and to electronic ones too), I have found the system immensely frustrating. The Web of Science is a dreadful tool to use - even if you have the privilege of access to it. It's nothing like as good as Google, and furthermore, hunting down the papers once you have found the reference is often time consuming[*]. And even Cambridge cannot subscribe to everything. Furthermore, if one is a teacher, an amateur scientist, a researcher in the 3rd world, these journals are beyond ones's reach.
What is really immoral, however, is that the journals in which one must publish (in order to be peer reviewed, in order to be read, and in order to keep the grants panels happy) usually insist that by publishing, you are assigning your copyright to them, and you may not publish your own work on the web. The journals are using their monopoly to take publicly funded research out of the public domain, and are very damaging to the progress of science.
[*] for non-academics, I should explain that the WoS is a search tool for abstracts of papers. Once you find a result, if you want to read the whole article, all you get is a reference eg "Journal X, issue Y, pages ppp-qqq". Then, you have to hunt down that journal on-line, and hope that your institution has a subscription. At best, a literature search that should take a few hours will take a day. At worst, many materials are inaccessible.
My research was significantly impeded by this system. But, for what it is worth, my thesis is on the web.
suck my evolved male genitalia like a just recently legal high school drop adult film actress , female dogs in heat Translation: Suck my cock like a pornstar, bitches Thats what i have to say to stupid fucktards like that. The internet as we know it was founded for the direct purpose of sharing scientific information and findings. (besides for the direct communications of army bases around the world in case of a nuclear war)
"to be like god we make our own dolls to play with, but what does that make us, but dolls for god to play with?" Ikari,
In Astronomy (at least in the US), major journals are supported by subscriptions AND by page charges. If an author wants to publish in a journal (eg. ApJ, AJ, etc.), they have to pay by the page. Subscription rates (for paper copies) are quite low, and generally reflect the cost of printing, binding, and postage. On-line subscriptions are also available to individuals (if you're institution doesn't already have an on-line subscription to the journal you're interested in), and are quite reasonable.
The exact charges are (for members of the AAS):
ApJ/ApJS/AJ Electronic Only $50
ApJ Printed $290 (add electronic for additional $25)
AJ Printed $110 (add electronic for additional $40)
Keep in mind that these are not some newstand magazine, but thick journals with many tens to hundreds of articles/month (some have multiple issues per month).
Page charges are $110/page for manuscripts submitted electronically.
Journals that don't use page charges have higher subscription rates (ie. Icarus - $3377)
From personal experience, articles in Icarus tend to be much longer than articles in ApJ or AJ - I wonder what would happen if the authors were paying by the page...
I'm not sure I agree, because realistically The Origin of Species has been peer reviewed over time. It's been criticised, compared with research, and it's held up. This is why the scientific community takes it seriously. Anyone can publish a book or an article that's not peer reviewed, even today, just as Darwin did. If it's significant, it'll be peer reviewed anyway, and future citations and research built on it will depend upon how well it survives that review.
Personally I think the biggest problem of open publication is when people aren't judging the information they receive with skepticism. This is well demonstrated by this guy. Ken Ring [2] [3] claims to be able to predict the weather mechanically, entirely by the actions of the Moon. The consequence of this is that he produces an annual almanac with weather predictions a year in advance, selling it for the RRP of NZ$44.95. (Approx US$30.) When it comes down to it, his theories are complete rubbish if you're lucky enough to actually be able to find accurate enough details of what they are.
It might seem that the obvious test is to compare his predictions with what actually happens. Nobody with any standing has bothered to do this, however, because as well as real scientists preferring to focus on their own thing rather than speak out publicly, his system isn't actually testable once you take into account all the exceptions that he states, for as much as it appears genuine to people who buy his books. Unfortunately, however, is that he has a publisher who gets him frequent radio and television interviews so he can spout and promote his ideas with an aura of authority as far as the general public is concerned. The media likes people with radical ideas, however spurious, and people listen to the media.
On the surface it might seem that this is pretty harmless, but we're at the point where people are putting their safety on the line with this guy's weather predictions.
Amazon lets readers post online reviews of the books they sell. Seems to work Ok for them. In an academic journal variant, any peer with appropriate credentials in the field could do the same on any paper. Let the chips fall where they may then.
I don't know how updated this ranking is, but according to it, JAIR and Artificial Intelligence" are in the same premium category.
I don't think researchers have anything to worry about allowing their articles to be freely available because due to their inherent dry and academic style no one but scholars, unwilling students, and the occasional phony intellectual will read them. Seriously I pity those non-scholar/professionals who choose to use their free time reading these journals.
Well that's not what happens in real life. I know of exactly one professor and zero graduate students that would ever do that. It is much, much easier to print off a single page of a PDF than to go to the library and photocopy the required page.
personally i disagree with this but thats because i have my own printer/scanner/copier unit (they really aren't that expensive now)
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I'm coming from a student's point of view here, and I'm in the social sciences so IANAS. When information is availiable online, even if it's only electronic journal reserves, it makes getting information so much easier. Under the Royal Society's plan their articles will only be availiable to researchers, who can fork over the big bucks for the subscription while us huddled masses who need a little information on what the Royal Society has to say on x issue are left in the dark.
The Internet makes sharing information incredibly easy. The point of science is the free exchange of information, not exclusively hoarding it within a snobby acedemic circle.The main point of this article that tends to be overlooked/ignored, even by the OP, is this:
Also, its worth linking the entire Royal Society position on open access, so those who read it would realize the OP is presenting a very selective view of the Royal Society's position.
The Royal Society's point is that free stuff might make non-profit/commercial organizations lose big money, possibly forcing them to stop producing their peer-reviewed journal. This is obviously bad for a scientific community trying to reach a larger audience, and thusly the above quote on exchanging knowledge and what-not. As scientists/free-as-in-beer advocates, this is the sort of concern/fear that we need to squash, and pronto.
What I believe the Research Council UK and the Royal Society should consider is a position put forth by Paul Ginsparg, who helps run arxiv.org (an open access system primarily for math/physics based papers). His idea, contrary to the Research Council UK plan of concurrently publishing research on the web at the same time as in such journals as Philosophical Transactions, is to publish research of refereeable quality immediately in a "standard tier" system primarily interested in dissemenation, rather than review of, the information - similar to that provided by arxiv.org. That way, experts in the field have immediate access to the work, can review/comment on the work so that the authors can improve upon it, respond to comments, post updates, etc. Upon meeting some guidelines put forth by an "upper tier", the work could then be submitted for peer review knowing it had met the standards for that tier. Only upon acceptance through peer review would the article reach the larger audience via publication, thereby fulfilling both the needs of open-access advocates and commercial/non-profit societies.
As an aside, Paul Ginsparg makes the interesting note that this system would also put the power of publication back in the non-profit sector: commercial entities only got involved due to the enormous costs associated with mass-production quality control of submissions. However, the dissemination of information and communication across the 'net essentially eliminates this requirement.
CAPS LOCK IS THE CRUISE CONTROL OF AWESOMNESS
I am a doctor interested in research and education. I have just launched a slashlike site:Mashdot - a virtual journal club to discuss journal articles published elsewhere. I would actually like to see distributed moderation complement formal peer review.
One reason I think formal peer review is insufficient, is that politically incorrect opinions are less likely to surface in them. Also, sometimes non-experts have better ideas than the experts in cutting edge research because they are more likely to think outside the box.
Naveen
So, basically, the Royal Society is saying that easy and cheap way to exchange information will harm the exchange of information. Excellent logic, lets hope that the person who released this brainfart isn't involved in any actual science, at least in virology, nuclear research, or anything else where stupidity might be potentially dangerous.
Or is this just a purposefull lie to discredit Internet to drive up subscriptions of their own magazine ? Either way, Royal Society just lost a lot of credibility in my eyes.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
They believe that internet publishing would harm the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
I think somebody should give them a book over the history of Internet and why it has been made public for the university decades ago.
This is the most absurd comment I've ever seen concerning Internet.
They have to choose: Do they want to publish studies? Then you have to take the most appropriate media to distribute them. IE Internet is by far the better choice. I don't know a single lab without a internet connection nearby.
Do they want to be somekind of a reward for hard working scientists (like c'mom I have been published in...)? So they are merely a third class noble prize.
Do they want to fund research? It simply means that they have to find another way to fund some researches of their own.
Just like anybody else on earth, it is not because you are the older that you aren't under the law of evolution (evolve or die).
Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?' They believe that internet publishing would harm the the profitability of being the middleman in the exchange of knowledge between researchers.
-Styopa
Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Are you insane?! After you've amassed journals it will take ten times as long to reef through the bulk of paper and find the article in question. With an electronic database you could potentially have a search engine do most of the work for you.
I've read dozens of papers in the last wee alone, but I've only printed one of them. Electronic copies are the way to go. You only really need paper versions of about 5% of the papers you read.
May the Maths Be with you!
Wasn't the web invented in the first place by scientists so they could more easily share information?
Indeed, and it can go a lot further too.
In addition to information sharing, the net could easily support moderated peer review by the very same experts who review papers submitted to the top journals. All that's needed is for a group of experts on a topic to get together and decide to do it. After all, the costs are miniscule, except for their time. And publication of a paper accepted by such a review body as an online PDF is a lot more useful than dead tree publication anyway.
Experts in a scientific field don't need the backing of a Society or of a respected scientific journal in order to perform peer review. They're acknowledged experts in their own right, and everyone working in a field inherently knows who they are.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
The one exception being the Journal of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, at BBS, which follows a model of open review commentary and publishes reviews, the author's answer to the review and third-party peer commentaries alongside the original paper. The journal goes as far as to publish papers which question the peer review system such as the famous D.P. Peters and S. J. Ceci 1982 paper titled "Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again." The paper shows how resubmitting papers that had already been published, under false names and institutions, resulted in almost all cases in the paper being rejected. The explanation being, that the academic status of the author and host institution greatly affects the reviewers bias. That BBS published such a paper (an many other similar ones having been published there and elsewhere) is at least a glimpse of hope.
They use other people's money, gained from their monopoly position as the gatekeepers of scientific publicity, to fund projects that appeal to their own personal sense of worth. Isn't that about what you just said?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The Journal and the NON profit magazines need to learn a lesson from the Music Industry. Making a choice to limit the sharing of research on the web to protect non - online publications limits the reach of the information. The music industry chose not to create a plan for web/music distribution and the current 'Out Of Control' state of online piracy created a plan for them. If the Music industry created the plan and implemented it to fill the need, piracy would have been less. These publications are now suffering the same fate. These publications have had ample time to create a plan to move towards a web centric contribution approach. Some of them have, and some of them have not. The publications need to make plans to move to a different medium and have different survival tactics then in the past, or, they will be outdated and will be hurt by their lack of planning for the time. There is enough information to conclude that web centric plans should have been made years ago. The time of the web as a means of sharing information is now.