What journal do you use that actually has proofreaders, let alone paid ones?
Actually ll my experiences with journals tells me they do have proofreaders. They are called "peer reviewers". ( Including a couple of funny stories from peer reviewers. )
That was a pretty balanced article and I agree with your filtering comments. Imagine an open access journal of quantum physics taking submissions at $250 a piece. Every quack in the world will be submitting to the extent of their bank account.
Most fees I have heard came after work was accepted. So under the present system you can submit all you want.
I would suggest that you try to write up some junk paper on quantum physics and submit it to arXiv and see how easy it is.
Actually that's not $3k out of their pocket, that's $3k out of their budget/grant. So that last should read:OH PLEASE PLEASE THE GOVERNMENT CAN AFFORD IT.
And how much of this is due to Hollywood accounting? The kind where Christopher Baen is paid 5% of the profit of his move "Light Ninja Naps" by Galactic Studios and despite a box office of $100 billion, is only paid $100,000 because much of the reveneue went to Galactic Sudio parking, Galactive Movie Equipment Rental, Galatic Set Rental....?
In the mid 1980's I was a grad student that found out the hard way how to publish papers, including the rather non-transparent way in which some papers are published quicker than others; still meaning months or years. In the late 1980's I was working in the field of library management systems - an era when the web was waiting to happen. My first thought was how science publishing - an area where clearly all actors are both consumers and producers of information - could use the web to cut out some of the middle men that seemed to add little value, add major costs and months to the publishing process. What took this so long to happen?
The middle man doing everything he can to prevent things from changing.
And how much does it cost the government in money taken from grants to publish or obtain published articles, or in elevated library fees so their institutions can subscribe to various journals? Those operating cost btw are 0.015% of the NSF yearly budget. You saying they can't fund a government journal. for that? Especially when they know they can reduce the size of grants by requiring publication in government journals?
Yes epijournals would add some expense, they are after all anotheer layer of processing. The extra processing would add a tiny amount. The editing and the reviewing can be obtained from the same place that the present day journals obtain them: the science community, and at the same cost: $0.
You still have to establish some sort of site where articles are "published" ( including passing muster ). Just putting up an article on a website wouldn't be enough for a grant.
Aaron Swartz was an idiot. He hung around with occupiers and got stuck on this idea of a grand gesture. Which eventually got him into trouble.
What if instead he started a project, collect requirements--in particular what is missing from arXiv ATM ( allowing edited revisions ), include aspects such as mirroring and managing epijournals. Create small groups for example the Society of Sociologists Who Study Men who say Neigh to create their own preprint and epijournal system and eventually merge with a bigger system. If the system gets big enough then it will slowly oust the publishers creating an open access system, to which old articles would eventually be absorbed.
I'm dated but you could try Physical Review. or simply go to any science library and open the front page. It will be there somewhere in the instruction for articles submissions. Usually they are called page fees.
More of a correlation between the science and the IT sophistication of the scientists.
I was there when arXiv was born. It started as a mailing list run by a woman physics grad student ( Joanne Cohn IIRC ) who sent TeX preprints from the UTexas staff to post-docs who had been grad students there. After a while other people sent their TeX preprints to her. Then it got too big for a mailing list. Way too big. So Paul Ginsparg wrote some software to manage it. Initially you sent ma preprint to a submission list with a separate abstract. The abstracts were sent out daily to the mailing list with a reference number. If you wanted the full article after reading the abstract, you sent a request with the reference number and the software emailed you the full paper. Then it evolved to something close to the present.
The point is that there were several factors leading to it's creation. Common use of email. Ability of physicists to write the software etc. that made it possible.
The whole thing was made possible by the creation of TeX, which meant that physicists typeset their own stuff. Before secretaries did it for them -- by hand on a typewriter. TeX allowed the sending of documents via email. Funny I don't think Knuth anticipated that.
I think one of the things that happened, was that like the RIAA was blindsided by Napster, the publishing industry was blindsided by arXiv, only more thoroughly. The whole thing was done and established before they realized that you could store documents in a way that
High-profile journals like Nature and Science, however, are a completely different story. Here, you have full-time editors paid by the journals who actually have to do tricky tasks such as finding good referees who will not reject a paper on political grounds...
Good one. ROFLMAO
Oh wait. You don't want referees rejecting papers on political grounds... IOW you don't want referees usurping an editors privilege I get it now.
OK. So we are starting to get somewhere. There are still a few facts needed, roughly how many grants are awarded to those universities?
How much money in those grants is set aside for cost of publishing and purchasing reference materials?
Using physics and arXiv as models, assume that 30% of topics (high-energy, general relativity, solid-state, etc ) are covered by arXiv and 50% ( the 30% are generally the most exciting and interesting areas, and also the most prolific ) of the physics papers produced in a year ( there is a delay between producing and publication which is not seen at arXiv--arXiv sees a paper as soon as it is produced ).
I think that it is safe to say that extending arXiv to all of physics can easily be covered by $2million a year. Add epijournals to that and double the cost. So $4million a year to set up arXiv and a publishing system. If the NFS were to fund it outright, and demand that all papers produced using their grants be published in the arXiv based epijournals, and reduce the grants accordingly what would the final numbers look like?
As someone previously pointed out, physicists have been coming close with arXiv ( and it's predecessors ) for 30 years. It's much cheaper and easier now, then it was back then.
The main thing you need is a bit of funding, but if the funding agencies were to reduce grants by 90% of what goes into paying for these journals ( publishing fees, library expenditures on journals, access fees to journal articles ) and give out grants ( from that 90%, after a few years I figure very little would be needed ) to people producing systems similar to arXiv with no publishing fees, no access fees, producing refereed ejournals, the researchers would get to slightly more ( hey 10% of something they no longer have to pay for ) funding and we would have a new academic publishing system that requires less money and works better then what we have.
The main problem is one of "how do we get there from here ".
Unless you have a stable funding model... I suspect they'll be working at jobs where they can feed their families and keep a roof over their head.
Admire them for what they did, but don't fool yourself into believing that money doesn't matter to real people in the real world.
It's also good to not fool yourself into thinking you know more than shit about what your talking about. Or as Lincoln put it, "when in a room full of people who think you are an idiot, it's better to keep quiet then open your mouth and remove any doubt."
In terms opf the p[resent argument, if the editors of the journal work as an overwhelming majority of editors of academic journals ( and they might not, I didn't even know that there were active library science researchers ), then they weren't getting paid.
Since if you store in some lossy format say MP3, and the world switches to some other lossy format, you won't be able go convert your files to the new format without hearing a big difference. If they are still good enough quality to listen to.
You need to store your stuff in a lossless format so when formats change you can convert. Even if you have versions in a lossless format for listening.
How can a person type with so few working brain cells?
That's why he went to MIT, so he would appear to JSTOR to be an MIT student/faculty and use MIT's account to access JSTOR.
When he went down to MIT, he might have fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty if MIT limited access of JSTOR to students/faculty. However, in every report or description of MIT's access policy it is indicated that MIT deliberately gave any person off the street JSTOR access there is no indication that he had fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty , nor have I seen any credible reports that he did so.
So I ask again where is the link to a credible source or where ios your proof that he fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty?
The outrage wasn't just over "the U.S. attorney's aggressive pursuit of a stiff sentence"; it was the "aggressive pursuit of a stiff sentence" as a means to get a guilty plea. And pleading guilty and become a felon is something Aaron refused to do, eventually by taking his own life.
The Justice Department knows they went overboard on this case. The fact of the matter is, although Aaron Swartz's crime was pretty major, it was still white-collar.. stealing a bunch of documents doesn't really justify a 7-year prison sentence, which is what they were going to hit him with before he committed suicide. They were looking to make an example of him and got caught with their pants down going overboard. Serves them right. The a**hole lawyers on the case wanted to make a name for themselves. Now they're backing off.. hopefully they do learn something from this, although knowing the way the judicial system operates, maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
When Heymann first learned of the Guerrella Open Access Manifesto he got very excited and rescinded the plea offerings. Probably because he thought with the Manifesto he had Swartz dead to rights. After grand jury testimony though, I believe he realized the Manifesto did not say what he thought it did. and Shwartz was likely to walk. So to save face he decided to try and bully Swartz into a plea bargain to avoid the embarrassment that an acquittal would bring.
I believe that discretion is useful to prosecutors and a powerful tool, but I also think it has to be used with wisdom. To me the best result of this situation would be the careers of Heymann and Ortiz in ruins, serving as a warning to other prosecutors to wield their discretion carefully.
He also fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty in order to get download access in the first place.
Ok. Of all the posts which made stupid claims this seems to be the dumbest. From every report I have ever read Swartz never identified himself as faculty or student.. Yoiu want to provide a link claiming otherwise?
Slashdot Mirror
What journal do you use that actually has proofreaders, let alone paid ones?
Actually ll my experiences with journals tells me they do have proofreaders. They are called "peer reviewers".
( Including a couple of funny stories from peer reviewers. )
That was a pretty balanced article and I agree with your filtering comments. Imagine an open access journal of quantum physics taking submissions at $250 a piece. Every quack in the world will be submitting to the extent of their bank account.
Most fees I have heard came after work was accepted. So under the present system you can submit all you want.
I would suggest that you try to write up some junk paper on quantum physics and submit it to arXiv and see how easy it is.
Actually that's not $3k out of their pocket, that's $3k out of their budget/grant. :OH PLEASE PLEASE THE GOVERNMENT CAN AFFORD IT.
So that last should read
As opposed to the $10,000,000 annual operating budget of Wikipedia or the $16,000,000 annual budget of the Internet Archive?
And how much of this is due to Hollywood accounting? ....?
The kind where Christopher Baen is paid 5% of the profit of his move "Light Ninja Naps" by Galactic Studios and despite a box office of $100 billion,
is only paid $100,000 because much of the reveneue went to Galactic Sudio parking, Galactive Movie Equipment Rental, Galatic Set Rental
This is for me kind of funny.
In the mid 1980's I was a grad student that found out the hard way how to publish papers, including the rather non-transparent way in which some papers are published quicker than others; still meaning months or years. In the late 1980's I was working in the field of library management systems - an era when the web was waiting to happen. My first thought was how science publishing - an area where clearly all actors are both consumers and producers of information - could use the web to cut out some of the middle men that seemed to add little value, add major costs and months to the publishing process. What took this so long to happen?
The middle man doing everything he can to prevent things from changing.
hosting a 3mb pdf will never cost 30$ per copy, no matter how much they say it does.
Getting to that 3mb pdf is a long process, which does cost money.
How much money does it cost to type "pdflatex"?
And how much does it cost the government in money taken from grants to publish or obtain published articles, or in elevated library fees so their institutions can subscribe to various journals? Those operating cost btw are 0.015% of the NSF yearly budget. You saying they can't fund a government journal. for that? Especially when they know they can reduce the size of grants by requiring publication in government journals?
Yes epijournals would add some expense, they are after all anotheer layer of processing. The extra processing would add a tiny amount. The editing and the reviewing can be obtained from the same place that the present day journals obtain them: the science community, and at the same cost: $0.
Like say Florian Meuller?
You still have to establish some sort of site where articles are "published" ( including passing muster ). Just putting up an article on a website wouldn't be enough for a grant.
Aaron Swartz was an idiot. He hung around with occupiers and got stuck on this idea of a grand gesture. Which eventually got him into trouble.
What if instead he started a project, collect requirements--in particular what is missing from arXiv ATM ( allowing edited revisions ), include aspects such as mirroring and managing epijournals. Create small groups for example the Society of Sociologists Who Study Men who say Neigh to create their own preprint and epijournal system and eventually merge with a bigger system. If the system gets big enough then it will slowly oust the publishers creating an open access system, to which old articles would eventually be absorbed.
I'm dated but you could try Physical Review. or simply go to any science library and open the front page. It will be there somewhere in the instruction for articles submissions. Usually they are called page fees.
More of a correlation between the science and the IT sophistication of the scientists.
I was there when arXiv was born. It started as a mailing list run by a woman physics grad student ( Joanne Cohn IIRC ) who sent TeX preprints from the UTexas staff to post-docs who had been grad students there. After a while other people sent their TeX preprints to her. Then it got too big for a mailing list. Way too big.
So Paul Ginsparg wrote some software to manage it. Initially you sent ma preprint to a submission list with a separate abstract. The abstracts were sent out daily to the mailing list with a reference number. If you wanted the full article after reading the abstract, you sent a request with the reference number and the software emailed you the full paper. Then it evolved to something close to the present.
The point is that there were several factors leading to it's creation. Common use of email. Ability of physicists to write the software etc. that made it possible.
The whole thing was made possible by the creation of TeX, which meant that physicists typeset their own stuff. Before secretaries did it for them -- by hand on a typewriter. TeX allowed the sending of documents via email. Funny I don't think Knuth anticipated that.
I think one of the things that happened, was that like the RIAA was blindsided by Napster, the publishing industry was blindsided by arXiv, only more thoroughly. The whole thing was done and established before they realized that you could store documents in a way that
High-profile journals like Nature and Science, however, are a completely different story. Here, you have full-time editors paid by the journals who actually have to do tricky tasks such as finding good referees who will not reject a paper on political grounds ...
Good one. ROFLMAO
Oh wait. You don't want referees rejecting papers on political grounds... IOW you don't want referees usurping an editors privilege I get it now.
OK. So we are starting to get somewhere.
There are still a few facts needed, roughly how many grants are awarded to those universities?
How much money in those grants is set aside for cost of publishing and purchasing reference materials?
Using physics and arXiv as models, assume that 30% of topics (high-energy, general relativity, solid-state, etc ) are covered by arXiv and 50% ( the 30% are generally the most exciting and interesting areas, and also the most prolific ) of the physics papers produced in a year ( there is a delay between producing and publication which is not seen at arXiv--arXiv sees a paper as soon as it is produced ).
I think that it is safe to say that extending arXiv to all of physics can easily be covered by $2million a year. Add epijournals to that and double the cost. So $4million a year to set up arXiv and a publishing system. If the NFS were to fund it outright, and demand that all papers produced using their grants be published in the arXiv based epijournals, and reduce the grants accordingly what would the final numbers look like?
As someone previously pointed out, physicists have been coming close with arXiv ( and it's predecessors ) for 30 years.
It's much cheaper and easier now, then it was back then.
The main thing you need is a bit of funding, but if the funding agencies were to reduce grants by 90% of what goes into paying for these journals ( publishing fees, library expenditures on journals, access fees to journal articles ) and give out grants ( from that 90%, after a few years I figure very little would be needed ) to people producing systems similar to arXiv with no publishing fees, no access fees, producing refereed ejournals, the researchers would get to slightly more ( hey 10% of something they no longer have to pay for ) funding and we would have a new academic publishing system that requires less money and works better then what we have.
The main problem is one of "how do we get there from here ".
Unless you have a stable funding model... I suspect they'll be working at jobs where they can feed their families and keep a roof over their head.
Admire them for what they did, but don't fool yourself into believing that money doesn't matter to real people in the real world.
It's also good to not fool yourself into thinking you know more than shit about what your talking about.
Or as Lincoln put it, "when in a room full of people who think you are an idiot, it's better to keep quiet then open your mouth and remove any doubt."
In terms opf the p[resent argument, if the editors of the journal work as an overwhelming majority of editors of academic journals ( and they might not, I didn't even know that there were active library science researchers ), then they weren't getting paid.
Thats a fair point. So where is the money going?
The pockets of the publishers.
Did you really need me to tell you that?
Jesus didn't wear shoes -- why should you?
I thought he wore sandals.
It shoul;d have been shaped like the Enterprise and flown in the "forward" direction, not that would be cool.
Perhaps Conferences would be more choosy in what non-developers they leet attend the conference?
Especially keep away the "professional victims"?
Since if you store in some lossy format say MP3, and the world switches to some other lossy format, you won't be able go convert your files to the new format without hearing a big difference. If they are still good enough quality to listen to.
You need to store your stuff in a lossless format so when formats change you can convert. Even if you have versions in a lossless format for listening.
How can a person type with so few working brain cells?
That's why he went to MIT, so he would appear to JSTOR to be an MIT student/faculty and use MIT's account to access JSTOR.
When he went down to MIT, he might have fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty if MIT limited access of JSTOR to students/faculty.
However, in every report or description of MIT's access policy it is indicated that MIT deliberately gave any person off the street JSTOR access there is no indication that he had fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty , nor have I seen any credible reports that he did so.
So I ask again where is the link to a credible source or where ios your proof that he fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty?
Hey they help cull the stupid.
From another post.
The outrage wasn't just over "the U.S. attorney's aggressive pursuit of a stiff sentence"; it was the "aggressive pursuit of a stiff sentence" as a means to get a guilty plea. And pleading guilty and become a felon is something Aaron refused to do, eventually by taking his own life.
The Justice Department knows they went overboard on this case. The fact of the matter is, although Aaron Swartz's crime was pretty major, it was still white-collar.. stealing a bunch of documents doesn't really justify a 7-year prison sentence, which is what they were going to hit him with before he committed suicide. They were looking to make an example of him and got caught with their pants down going overboard. Serves them right. The a**hole lawyers on the case wanted to make a name for themselves. Now they're backing off.. hopefully they do learn something from this, although knowing the way the judicial system operates, maybe they did and maybe they didn't.
When Heymann first learned of the Guerrella Open Access Manifesto he got very excited and rescinded the plea offerings. Probably because he thought with the Manifesto he had Swartz dead to rights. After grand jury testimony though, I believe he realized the Manifesto did not say what he thought it did. and Shwartz was likely to walk. So to save face he decided to try and bully Swartz into a plea bargain to avoid the embarrassment that an acquittal would bring.
I believe that discretion is useful to prosecutors and a powerful tool, but I also think it has to be used with wisdom. To me the best result of this situation would be the careers of Heymann and Ortiz in ruins, serving as a warning to other prosecutors to wield their discretion carefully.
He also fraudulently identified himself as MIT student/faculty in order to get download access in the first place.
Ok. Of all the posts which made stupid claims this seems to be the dumbest. From every report I have ever read Swartz never identified himself as faculty or student..
Yoiu want to provide a link claiming otherwise?