Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Libraries Defend Open Access

Posted by kdawson on from the we-already-paid-for-it-once dept.

aisaac writes "Earlier this year an article in Nature (PDF, subscription required) exposed publishers' plans to equate public access to federally funded research with government censorship and the destruction of peer review. In an open letter last month, Rockefeller University Press castigated the publishers' sock-puppet outfit, PRISM, for using distorting rhetoric in a coordinated PR attack on open access. Now the Association of Research Libraries has released an Issue Brief addressing this PR campaign in more detail. The Issue Brief exposes some of the distortions used to persuade key policy makers that recent gains made by open access scientific publishing pose a danger to peer reviewed scientific research, free markets, and possibly the future of western civilization. As an example of what the publishers backing PRISM hate, consider the wonderfully successful grants policy of the National Institutes of Health, which requires papers based on grant-funded research to be published in PubMed Central."

32 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. say what? by Doppler00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it just me, or am I the only one that read that description and have no idea what the issue is or what it's about? Can someone please re-word it?

    1. Re:say what? by Kierthos · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can't help you. Too busy being amused by the words "sock puppet" in a Slashdot submission.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:say what? by symes · · Score: 4, Informative

      there are publishers printing scientists' work but only allowing access to those who are willing to stump up some cash. these publishers usually retain copy write of the printed work and, recently, have been charging more and more for the privilege. since most of the better research that ends up in print is government funded this practice has been raising a few eye-brows. for more info take a look here.

    3. Re:say what? by hanssprudel · · Score: 5, Informative

      Traditional academic publishing works like this:

      - Research money (typically from the government, ie your money) is used to fund research and scientists write articles about it.

      - Those articles are sent to periodicals (journals) to be published. The journals are corporate, and carry different amounts of prestige. For a researcher, getting papers in prestigious journals is extremely important, so they send them off willingly, and the journals do not pay a dime (in fact, sometimes the researcher has to pay).

      - The article gets to sent to an editor at the journal, who is typically a well established senior researcher working for free because being an editor is prestigious (that is, he is working on time paid for by your money).

      - The editor chooses researchers to do "peer review" on the article, that is anonymously write judge its merit. These peer reviewers work for free.

      - If the article is accepted, the researcher is very happy, and gleefully signs over the copyright on the article he has written (which you paid for) to the corporate publisher.

      - The corporate publisher, which now owns the article, won't let anybody access it unless they pay for a subscription to the journal. Large universities typically pay millions of dollars a year (again, largely your money) for journal subscriptions.

      So to recap: researchers write the article for free (or pay), editors work for free, reviewers work for free, the publishers get the copyright and loads of money. In some fields you are even expected to typeset the article yourself, leaving the publisher only with the arduous task of visiting the bank to check on its ever increasing balance, and laughing at the sucker who finances all this (you). Because there is prestige in publishing in the "right" journal, and the money being spent doesn't belong to the people spending it, there is no market pressure to drive the prices down nor to make the system more sane. A number of companies, notably Elsevier, Wiley, and Springer, make incredible amounts of money off this.

      Lately, however, something has finally started happening. The open access movement has been started to try to make scientific work freely available on the Internet, through open journals (like PLoS) and through researchers retaining copyright so they can put their articles on their own homepages and on sites like arXiv and aforementioned PubMed Central. This movement has gained a lot of momentum, and what is just starting to happen is that the people holding the pursestrap (like the National Institue of Health) want to start requiring that research they pay for published open access. Obviously, the publishers will do anything not to lose their sweet gig, hence the lobbyists all over capitol hill screaming censorship and government interference (both of which are completely ridiculous - I'm as libertarian as the next guy, but if the government pays for the science, it can say where you publish it).

    4. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... You clearly don't have any personal experience with the scientific process. The market does not and will not fund the most valuable research for society. The most valuable research for society comes in two types. First there is pure research which leads to profound advancements many years down the line. There is no money to be made from this, so the market would never touch it. Yet everyone involved in science knows that this type of research has the most long-lasting implications.

      Second there are aspects of applied research which do not manifest in a product, but instead teach society something. For example, if several studies are conducted to determine whether or not simple vitamins can treat a serious disease, then the result may be a profound and inexpensive treatment. The market, however, will never fund this because the result of the research is not a marketable product.

      Suggesting that the market will somehow fund research when most research of value produces no marketable products is naive at best. Instead, society should be funding far more research than it currently is through governmental means, and I wager it will be funding quite a bit more research as the state of society continues to advance.

    5. Re:say what? by stranger_to_himself · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The current model for the dissemination of scientific research is that scientists send letters and papers to journals, which are then peer assessed by reviewers assigned by the journal and, if they meet a certain standard, are printed. Journals used to be printed and sent to subscribers, and nobody complained that they had to pay to receive a copy of the journal.

      Now journals can put papers online for their subscribers instead of printing, which makes people wonder exactly what the publishers are doing for the money they expect to get. They don't write the articles or pay the authors, and they don't review them or pay the reviewers (I write and review pretty regularly). But this remains the only accepted way to release your research, to appear in a well respected journal. The journals are now trading purely on reputations they have aquired for the standards of the work they accept.

      Public Library of Science, as I understand it, is an online repository of research that is open to everybody. There are also several PLoS journals, that appear online and for free and perform most of the functions of the old paper journals and their online equivilants. PLoS is also gaining a good reputation for quality.

      Traditional publishers are in trouble because of this, and will inevitably make some rather desperate arguments to preserve their business models, hence the article.

    6. Re:say what? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Informative

      While I agree that you got the majority of the information correct, I did want to point out a few things. First, there is a whole lot of research out there that is not funded by government grants. However, the actual percentages entirely depend on the field where the research is being done. Also, a number of journals do give the EIC and Associate Editors (basically, the senior research staff associated with the journal) an honorarium in lieu of a salary. Again, the amounts totally depend upon the agreement. At the journal I previously worked for, the EIC's honorarium was about $40K/year. Then again, we were a small research nonprofit publication that funneled any income back into our business via various means, so we weren't anywhere in the same ballpark as Elsevier or Wiley. Just thought I'd mention these few things...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    7. Re:say what? by speaker+of+the+truth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The free market has spoken and it says it wants government funds. Oh I'm sorry, you don't want it to be THAT free, do you?

      --
      Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
    8. Re:say what? by aurispector · · Score: 5, Informative

      Bell Labs doesn't really exist anymore because the visionary guys who ran the likes of Bell, HP, etc., have been replaced by corporate greedhead drones who diligently "enhance shareholder value" by offshoring anything that isn't nailed down.

      New milennium capitalism uses political means to artificially support a business model and short-circuit free market competition. If you can't win by competing, pay off the political process to rig the rules in your favor.

      What is basically happening is that the publishers want to protect their little piles of paper via legislative means. If they actually had something worthwhile, people would pony up for access. In the old days libraries would pay for hard copies because there really was no other way to do it and the prices were fairly reasonable. Individuals might personally subscribe to a relevant journal. Now that there is no reason to actually print hard copies the publishers are fighting tooth and nail to stay in business.

      If the government wanted to do something useful, they could set up a framework in which legitimate peer reviewed journals could be published online free of charge.

      If we are going to have an information superhighway it shouldn't be a toll road.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    9. Re:say what? by MrHanky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or perhaps children shouldn't read Ayn Rand before they know the difference between fiction and real life.

    10. Re:say what? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm not sure that even electronic publishing could ever be free, just keeping the disks spinning and bandwidth paid for the usefull life of an article has an monitary expense. I will admit that the monitary expense is minor compared to the costs of editorial and peer review, yet these cost are not exclusively a monitary expense, the initial editorial and peer review could easily be payment in kind for publication credit. I would explain what I'm thinking about as a chimera of Slashdot and arXiv.org. The editors would be editors and be resonsible for maintence of the actually sections and their continuity, there would be an advisory board and advisory boards for the subject sections like at arXiv.org and the whole thing could be karma based. So an article would be submitted, when the editorial board signns off, it goes to the advisory board who would either veto it for errors or vote on it it to establish a ranking for science and topical interest, if the ranking is high enough it gets published on the main page or the subject pages, failing that in stays in the firehose for a while then gets archived. Because topicality is considered for display position and it's web-based all of the mundane things like hardware/software/sysadmin expenses could easily be advertiser sponsored. The "related stories" feature would be very inteesting especially if it could be weighted to provide both agreeing and disagreeing related articles.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:say what? by LooTze · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with most of what you but need to add a couple of points. Before I proceed, let me start by saying that I am all for free access and whenever there is a choice I try to publish my stuff in open access journals. The big deal in open access (at least in Biology) has been the introduction of PLoS which attempts to compete with the top three journals (Nature, Science and Cell). And there is still no evidence that this can be economically feasible - primarily because such journals have genuine editors who are paid a lot of money to do the editing. So unlike most other journals, these editors actually can summarily decide to reject a paper for weird policy reasons like it is not flashy enough or popular science enough (even if the reviewers recommend publication). Whether you like the policy or not, the journals want to assure that they have editors who have a clue and are committed. So these are full-time jobs which are well-paid. In addition, most journals do have to pay copy editors, printers, etc. The only way PLoS has been able to circumvent this is by (a) huge donations )primarily from a couple of donors (b) Charge the authors money to publish their work. This used to be $1500 and now has been increased to $2000 or $2500. Of course, some argue that the high cost is primarily because the PLoS offices are located in San Francisco. (But that belongs to a different offshoring story. Unfortunately, recently HHMI was trying to decide what to do about this open access but did not end up doing the right thing. The reason this is important is that HHMI is the largest private funder of biomedical research in the US and probably the world - and HHMI investigators contribute a significant chunk of papers in top journals. HHMI investigators are evaluated every few years and it is a scary process because if you get kicked out, there is not way you can get back in. HHMI started off by saying that they will only count open access journals in this review process but then eventually after a lot of backdoor politics - primarily because the stupid scientists did not want to stop publishing in the top journals - it was decided that HHMI was going to pay publishers a truckload of money to allow open access (eventually) to papers from HHMI investigators. They had so much negotiating power that if they had stood their ground, they could have easily got open access for everyone in a year or so. But sadly, not going to happen.

    12. Re:say what? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bell Labs was the result of a large regulated monopoly running the national phone system having so much money it was an embarrassment. While Bell Labs did lots of absolutely stunning R&D, there were plenty of other side effects to the economy that were bad as a result of having this monopoly control a critical part of the economy. One of these effects that we are suffering from even today is that the oligopolies that were the result of the Bell breakup are actively hindering the growth of communications technologies in the US - broadband, VoIP (and public ENUM), metro WiFi, and portable cellular.

      New milennium (sic) capitalism uses political means to artificially support a business model and short-circuit free market competition. If you can't win by competing, pay off the political process to rig the rules in your favor.

      There is nothing, NOTHING new to that process. It has been going on for at least 5 millennia.

    13. Re:say what? by Gandling · · Score: 2, Informative

      The only way PLoS has been able to circumvent this is by (a) huge donations )primarily from a couple of donors (b) Charge the authors money to publish their work. This used to be $1500 and now has been increased to $2000 or $2500. As a former grad student I can assure you that many established journals charge authors a publishing fee on the same order of magnitude.
    14. Re:say what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But has the free public given its approval to give their money to the free market? I don't think so.

      Capitalism is a great system until it buys government influence.

    15. Re:say what? by porpnorber · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Timescales. If people made investments with 50 or 100 year horizons, the market probably would do some good. In fact, this was arguably one of the positive qualities of monarchy, and dynastic thinking in general. (Of course, one is no more likely to get a good king as a good president, and kings last longer; there are two sides to every coin.)

      The only direction I have been able to think of going from where we are now that might bring back some sanity is selling long horizon futures in researchers, either as individuals or perhaps small groups (such as graduating classes from your institution). It's a bit like the xxAA problem; the corporation, fundamentally the middleman in the equation, can't be trusted as the vehicle to set the goals.

    16. Re:say what? by symes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The market does not and will not fund the most valuable research for society Spot on. Particularly where that research might result cause restrictions to market activity. For example research into the deleterious effects of smoking, etc..
    17. Re:say what? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      the "karma system" would have to be multi-dimensional, you'd get more publication credit if your articles survived peer-review, you might get more peerage credit if you comments to an article were moded up by others etc. if your publication score is high, you'd need less peer review, if your peerage is high you'd be able to review more articles or your review would get a heavier weighting. Considering it's the first time my idea has seen the light of day I think it's pretty good, but of course it's still rough and needs some polishing. At worst it could be an idea that seems good at first glance but has unanticipated problems. The system might even encourage some interesting cross field collaborations, maybe a scienceforge instead of a sourceforge.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  2. Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. by dsaklad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Our libraries come up short with regard to overdrive...

    Letter to the Boston Public Library
    http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html

            * Send this page to somebody

    To the Management of the Boston Public Library,

    Don Saklad forwarded me your message which reports that OverDrive Audio Books use "copyright protection technology" made by Microsoft.

    The technology in question is an example of Digital Restrictions Management (DRM)--technology designed to restrict the public. Describing it as "copyright protection" puts a favorable spin on a mechanism intended to deny the public the exercise of those rights which copyright law has not yet denied them.

    The use of that format for distributing books is not a fact of nature; it is a choice. When a choice leads to bad consequences, it ought to be changed, and that is the case here. I respectfully submit that the Boston Public Library has a responsibility to refuse to distribute anything in this format, even if it seems "convenient" to some in the short term.

    By making the choice to use this format, the Boston Public Library gives additional power to a corporation already twice convicted of unfair competition.

    This choice excludes more than just Macintosh users. The users of the GNU/Linux system, an operating system made up of free/libre software, are excluded as well. Since these audiobooks are locked up with Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), it is illegal in the US to release free/libre software capable of reading these audiobooks. Apple may make some sort of arrangement to include capable software in MacOS (which is, itself, non-free software for which users cannot get source code). But we in the free software community will never be allowed to provide software to play them, unless laws are changed.

    There is another, deeper issue at stake here. The tendency of digitalization is to convert public libraries into retail stores for vendors of digital works. The choice to distribute information in a secret format--information designed to evaporate and become unreadable--is the antithesis of the spirit of the public library. Libraries which participate in this have lost their hearts.

    I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management.
    Sincerely
    Richard Stallman
    President, Free Software Foundation
    MacArthur Fellow
    http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/bpl.html

    1. Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. by shalla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have a response to this. Instead of haranguing the libraries, bug the hell out of the publishers. As it stands there are currently ZERO library vendors that offer eAudiobook downloads that are compatible with Mac or GNU/Linux because of the DRM on the files. This is certainly NOT the choice of the libraries.

      I'm a librarian for a public library in Pittsburgh. We get requests all the time for downloadable audiobooks. We got requests before we had any options, and we get them now that we offer both OverDrive and Netlibrary downloads. At least OverDrive has the option to (in some cases, if the publisher has allowed it) burn the book to CD. After that, you can then import it to iTunes and transfer it over to your iPod. It's stupid clunky and you're better off just getting the CDs in the first place to listen that way, but it can be done and OverDrive's CEO has been known to tell people that.

      Now, here's the question from the library's point of view. Is it better to not offer ANY eAudiobooks at all, despite the many requests for them, than to offer ones that can only be used by those with the dominant operating system? (We have to make the same decision with video games, too. What formats do we buy in?) With all due respect to the parent poster and to Mr. Stallman, my job is not to take a stand on DRM. It's to provide materials to the public in the formats they want, and that means that in some cases, like it or not, we're going to decide to offer eAudiobooks that cannot be used by all computer users. Just as DVDs cannot be watched by VCR owners, and CDs cannot be listened to by those with merely a tape deck, and Mac software cannot be run on a Windows machine. We're going to have to judiciously apportion an appropriate part of the budget according to demand for the items.

      Now, would libraries love to change this? Yes. I personally have a list of free, non-DRM sites that allow you to download eAudiobooks for free that I hand out along with instructions on how the library-accessible eAudiobooks work. The problem is that those sites (such as Librivox or AudiobooksForFree) don't offer Janet Evanovich or John Patterson or the other bestsellers. They're generally things in the public domain (obviously), and our patrons usually want newer items.

      Every chance I get, I complain to our Recorded Books representative (who works with Netlibrary) about the DRM limitations and make the case that should another company come along that offers downloads without DRM, we're gone to them no matter the cost. The libraries that have told OverDrive to buzz off in the past have just gotten shrugs. It doesn't change anything. (This includes the library located right next to Apple Headquarters, by the way. They finally gave in to demand.)

      This is something that gets discussed all the time amongst librarians and on library blogs. My feeling is that complaining to the libraries is useless. We agree with you in spirit, but in practice, we're going to offer the product because our patrons want it. What we WILL support you in is complaining to the companies themselves, and in pushing the publishers to reach for a broader market. Instead of writing letters to libraries, spend your time convincing the publishers that they'll have wider listenership (without losing sales) if they hit the non-DRM market and convincing OverDrive and Netlibrary to begin offering other options than the protected WMA files.

      From OverDrive's Web site, here's their contact information:

      OverDrive, Inc.
      Valley Tech Center - Suite N
      8555 Sweet Valley Drive
      Cleveland, OH 44125 USA
      Phone: (216) 573-6886
      Fax: (216) 573-6888
      Email: info@overdrive.com

      And from NetLibrary's Web site:

      NetLibrary Division Office
      4888 Pearl East Circle, Ste. 103
      Boulder, CO 80301
      USA
      info@NetLibrary.com

      Or, since NetLibrary is a division of OCLC:

      Headquarters
      OCLC Online Computer Library Center

    2. Re:Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. by Chandon+Seldon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With all due respect to the parent poster and to Mr. Stallman, my job is not to take a stand on DRM.

      As a librarian, it absolutely is your ethical/professional responsibility to evaluate the social implications of DRM technology and potentially take a stand on the issue. DRM acceptance has the potential to define the level of access to human knowledge people have. DRM use today has a direct impact on the extent to which libraries can archive information for the future.

      The model for libraries has always been that the library actually controls a copy of the book / CD / tape and can lend it to anyone at any time. DRM-encumbered files give the publisher complete control - with a default of "deny access". That default is utterly incompatible with the mission of a public library.

      --
      -- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
  3. Overdrive. Our libraries come up short. by dsaklad · · Score: 2, Informative

    Send a letter to the Boston Public Library

            * Send this page to somebody

    "I therefore urge the Boston Public Library to terminate its association with OverDrive Audio Books, and adopt a policy of refusing to be agents for the propagation of Digital Restrictions Management."
    http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

    Richard Stallman sent a letter to the Boston Public Library (BPL) asking them to abandon the system they currently use to distribute audio books, since this format requires the use of proprietary software. It is illegal in the US to release free software capable of reading these audio books because of the Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) measures that are being imposed.

    You can help by sending your own letter to the BPL (gref at bpl dot org) and by examining the policies of your own local library. We would be glad to see CCs of any letters you send at campaigns@fsf.org and to hear about any similar policies in place at libraries other than the BPL.

    Please keep an eye on our DRM campaign area for future updates about this and other related issues
    http://www.fsf.org/news/letter-to-the-bpl

  4. The article is about... 30 bucks by Nymz · · Score: 4, Funny

    and after you pay, then you'll need a proprietary reader to read it.
    Slashdot Submissions Showing Subtle Sarcasm +1

  5. Hyperbole? by MollyB · · Score: 3, Insightful

    pose a danger to peer reviewed scientific research, free markets, and possibly the future of western civilization. This is a breathtakingly bold projection, muted somewhat (weaseled?) by the word "possibly". Nope, haven't RTFA, but most "Chicken Little" pronouncements seem to fizzle sooner than later. I have even less faith in the power of form letters, which Richard Stallman suggests above. Maybe we should just send nuts?
  6. ya right by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 5, Funny

    just let the market have it's way and everything will be fine and dandy. Except the only things we'll end up with are cures for erectile dysfunction, manhandled leg syndrome and purple pills that do something truly wonderful but you have to talk to your doctor to find out.

    1. Re:ya right by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      purple pills that do something truly wonderful but you have to talk to your doctor to find out

      What do you mean you have to ask your doctor? Haven't you seen the commercials?
      The purple pills make you go prancing through grassy fields.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  7. But...how can you NOT trust Prism??? by Poingggg · · Score: 4, Funny

    ..if they have people in LAB-COATS on every page on their site? WHITE labcoats! Everybody knows you can trust someone in a labcoat!

    --
    What person will donate an airborne act of love?
  8. the scholary communications process is broken by ericleasemorgan · · Score: 5, Informative

    The scholarly communications process is broken, and it has been this way for at least 15 years. I applaud the efforts of ARL and decry the lies and propaganda articulated by PRISM.

    Again, the process is broken, and there are three contributing factors, listed here in no priority order. First, librarians (and libraries) desire to preserve the historical record for future use. This means they (we) desire to collect and organize just about as much of human's intellectual output in order to foster the growth of knowledge. Idealistic, I know, but it is true. Second, scholars (usually university faculty) have the natural desire for promotion and tenure. They want to be recognized by their peers and rewarded for achievements. This is often realized through publishing journal articles in sets of established venues. Third, publishers have the natural desire to earn as much money as possible. This is the nature of capitalism.

    This three-fold combination (buy everything for the sake of future generations, published in established venues, and make as much money as possible) has driven the prices of scholarly journals through the roof. For example, just guess how much the average scholarly journal costs per year? If you guessed less than a few thousand dollars, then you were wrong. Twelve issues. Glossy paper. No ads. $3,000/year or more. Just about the worse journal is Brain Research costing close to $15,000/year.

    Each of the three groups (librarians, scholars/researchers, and publishers) have the "rights" to do what they are doing, but in the process I sincerely believe the public gets the short end of the stick. Because the journals are licensed (not purchased) from the publishers, a person needs to be a part of the licensee's membership group in order to read the articles. This excluded the general public, researchers from abroad, or people in third-world countries. How are these people suppose to benefit from the research if they can't have access to the content?

    Open access publishing is seen as one possible solution to these problems. It is very much akin to open source software. Research something. (Scratch an itch.) Write about it. (Document your software.) Deposit it in an archive and give it away (Make it available for download). Wait for comments. (Support your software.) Repeat, and enjoy the acknowledgement of your peers.

    Open access publishing is not the answer to everything just as open source software is not the answer to everything. On the other hand, the public -- who has funded much of the research of scholars through tax-paid grants -- does have the right to access to materials they helped create. PRISM advocates the commercial sector continue to have control over the distribution process. Such a perspective is a disservice to the nature of scholarship and the freedom of access to fundamental knowledge.

    --
    Eric Lease Morgan
    University Libraries of Notre Dame

  9. Isn't this simple? by Stu+Charlton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm not a scientist, and I had a heck of a time parsing through the summary, but I think I get it now.

    1. An old economic model is dying: charging high fees for publishing & distribution of scholarly works
    2. A new model is emerging: open, primarily web-based, access to these scholarly works after peer review
    3. Publishers are desperate to retain their revenue streams, and will use PR, lobbying, rhetoric, and eventually legal means to stop this trend.
    4. Vested interests (those who rely on the reputation of said journals) don't want to change the status quo.

    It reads to me that PRISM ~= RIAA, circa 1999. The first salvos began with Napster's release, the first salvos here are beginning with rumblings of OA legislation.

    Obviously there could/should be a nominal fee for hard copy redistribution, to manage the infrastructure of a such a press. But, when people can print their own copies with open access, this probably won't be needed.

    The *real* economic value, it seems, of these publishers is the "brand reputation" associated with particular journals, which select certain articles for publication. Couldn't this be preserved by viewing these not as publishers, but as mere "content aggregators" of (open access) content? There's value in that, and a business could built on it, I'd think. (e.g. you're reading an example here w/ Slashdot).

    --
    -Stu
  10. Re:turkeys voting for Christmas? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At the moment all my research library does is manage the subscriptions that my University has with journals.

    And maintains the building that said journals are housed in. And hires the staff to keep you from walking out the door with the journals, having a party in the cubicles, smoking in the bathroom, or keeping the transients from moving into the library. And argues with IT each Wednesday after the computers freeze up. And argues with the budgeting staff of the University to replace those chairs that supported your great grandfather's butt.

    And so on and so forth.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. A little caution by liegeofmelkor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, I'll state that I think PRISM is a farce and the government (and the people they represent) have every right to demand access to the works they fund. However, I'd like to introduce a little balance to this discussion. While the tenets behind the movement to open access are simple and obvious, and a general framework for an open access system can be sketched out by any non-expert (evidenced in this forum), the consequences of screwing up in the transition demand caution and a great deal of forethought. The current system, although fostering spiraling prices, is relatively good at ensuring quality, reproducible and generally true work (to the best of the authors' knowledge) gets published. The incidents of researchers fabricating or distorting data is rare enough that it usually makes large headlines in the news. Peer-review is directly responsible for the level of credibility in academic publications. However, the peer-review process itself doesn't weed out fabrications or distortions in data, because researchers doing very specialized experiments could, hypothetically, forge data convincingly enough to fool peers in the field (for a few years at least). The aura of a thorough and organized system (and the fear and stigma of getting caught), however, force the potentially less-than-ethical researchers (a non-trivial fraction of academians seeking recognition and advancement) to police themselves and maintain ethical standards. If even the impression of a less rigorous, less organized system infiltrates the scientific community, it could embolden the more ambitious (for advancement) researchers to lower their ethical standards (some even subconsciously), producing a feedback loop as their less-than-rigorous research enters the field. This would be a HUGE blow to forward progress in research and could take decades to rectify. Granted, this is a low-probability outcome! However, the gov.t isn't known for meticulous foresight and smooth transitions to new business models (neither is the market system for that matter). So, even though I disagree with PRISM, I'm glad assholes like them are out there to slow the progress of the movement. Consider them as a skeptical peer-reviewer. If the open access model is sound (and I think it is), it will come through in the end, and the critiques incorporated from the likes of PRISM will only make it stronger and more rigorous. They're a balancing force, although a malevolent one.

  12. Re:turkeys voting for Christmas? by azaris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Electronic journals don't need housing. Back issues are being scanned and made available fast. I don't have to leave my desk to get current journals.

    I should consider it rather important to store multiple physical copies of scientific research in libraries throughout the world. There's already an alarming amount of obscure but relevant research from the 19th century and early 20th century that simply hasn't been widely reprinted and is in the danger of becoming folklore because the original manuscripts are so rare. Electronic storage is even less longevous than paper storage, it's not a solution for the ages.

    Libraries are like RAID-5 of the research community.