Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Semelhante a Vss satellite talk3
Semelhante a Vss satellite talk3 (20)
Mais de Alex Holcombe
Mais de Alex Holcombe (12)
Último
Último (20)
Vss satellite talk3
- 1. Moving towards inexpensive and open publishing Alex.Holcombe@sydney.edu.au School of Psychology http://www.slideshare.net/holcombea/ @ceptional
- 2. Open science, alternative reviewing models Open Access (OA) “Publishing services are worth a lot of $$” Elsevier & boycotting “Either the author has to pay or the library has to pay” “Vision Research is venerable & valuable so should be exempt” “We have good OA journals already in perception, so we don’t need to do anything”
- 3. Scientist meets Publisher Academic knowledge is boxed in by expensive journals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMIY_4t-DR0
- 4. Open science, alternative reviewing models Open Access (OA) “Publishing services are worth a lot of $$” Elsevier & boycotting
- 5. JOURNAL / PUBLISHER COST • Elsevier was the main backer of the RWA $10,780/article • Elsevier opposes the FRPAA $85/page $80/page (introductory rate is even cheaper) $1350/article
- 6. JOURNAL / PUBLISHER COST • Elsevier was the main backer of the RWA $10,780/article • Elsevier opposes the FRPAA $85/page $80/page (introductory rate is even cheaper) $1350/article
- 7. Online inst. Publisher Journal subscription/ per page year Vision Elsevier AU$4836 AU$1.91 Research Brain Elsevier AU$24,047 AU$2.52 Research Pion Perception AU$1340 AU$1.13 Elsevier Cognition AU$1397 AU$0.78
- 8. Monopoly + Profit $ = maximization
- 9. Monopoly + Profit $ = maximization
- 10. Individual action •Editors of journals can resign, move to inexpensive/OA journals •Deposit your manuscripts in your institutional repository (green road to OA) •putting them on your personal webpage not recommended •Review preferentially for OA journals (e.g. http://thecostofknowledge.com/) •Submit preferentially to OA or nearly-OA journals •JoV, i-Perception •PLoS journals (fee waived for those who can’t pay) •Frontiers •J. Neurophysiology ($75 per final-published PDF page, article free after 12 months) •Proc Roy Soc London B (free within 12 mos.) •PNAS (free within 6 mos.) •Seeing & Perceiving (Brill allows archiving)
- 12. The “Live and Let Live” argument for inaction: Those disliking Elsevier or closed access generally can submit elsewhere, but no collective action like editorial boards decamping is needed. BUT • Impact factor / journal prestige usually trumps all other considerations to keep old journals on top • Most researchers are in a bind, therefore not enough will act individually to topple status quo • Junior author problem • Lack of funds prevents many of us from submitting to open access journals. Together these factors mean that “Live and let live” will result in NO or very slow change.
- 13. Open science, alternative reviewing models Open Access (OA) “Publishing services are worth a lot of $$” Elsevier & boycotting “Either the author has to pay or the library has to pay” “Vision Research is venerable & valuable so should be exempt” “We have good OA journals already in perception, so we don’t need to do anything”
- 14. Collective action “Either the author has to pay or the library has to pay” •Consortia of university libraries to give small percentage of “Need to lay out a roadmap for the subscription fees to fund open access journals transition to open access that maintains the quality of the editorial •Organize your university/institute/dept to mandate Green OA work” (repository archiving) •Lobby your country’s government or research funders to mandate OA (within 6 months of publication and/or repository archiving) •Entire editorial board of journal resign, move to better publisher •Find a new publisher / merge with another journal •Delegate a working party to work out possible terms with other publishers that meet criteria: •Non-profit or at least not profiteering •Not oppose RWA, FRPAA, etc. Work in partnership with funders towards progressive models •If funds/man-hours not available for gold OA, use CambridgeUP, Oxford Journals, BioMed Central, Ubiquity Publishing, Wiley...
- 15. Collective action “Either the author has to pay or the library has to pay” •Consortia of university libraries to give small percentage of “Need to lay out a roadmap for the subscription fees to fund open access journals transition to open access that maintains the quality of the editorial •Organize your university/institute/dept to mandate Green OA work” (repository archiving) •Lobby your country’s government or research funders to mandate OA (within 6 months of publication and/or repository archiving) •Entire editorial board of journal resign, move to better publisher •Find a new publisher / merge with another journal •Delegate a working party to work out possible terms with other publishers that meet criteria: •Non-profit or at least not profiteering The fault... lies •Not oppose RWA, FRPAA, etc. Work in partnership with not in our stars funders towards progressive models but in ourselves that we are •If funds/man-hours not available for gold OA, use underlings CambridgeUP, Oxford Journals, BioMed Central, Ubiquity Publishing, Wiley...
Notas do Editor
- -prep: have movie open. Connect AUDIO\n-Dwight has a nice long-term vision. To get there, we may need to get away from the historical baggage\n-There are researchers, citizens, patients all around the world who every day hit a paywall when trying to access the research they need\n-All of us can do something about this\n-Even people like me, whose research is irrelevant to medical issues or practical benefits can make a difference, because we’re all part of the same academic system that currently blocks access\nand our individual successes here get copied by other areas to shift the tide\n-This is what has really motivated me in this area- even when my own research is of no interest to anyone, I can help make useful research more useable\n\n\necause the choices we make about how to do our science are what creates the future of the science.\n-Everytime that we agree to review a paper, that we accept an invitation to write a book chapter or for a special issue\n-When we agree to join the editorial board of a journal\n-Everytime that we submit a paper to a journal\n-We’re steering the future of science. Our choices may create a future that looks just like the present. Or our choices can steer science away from some things and towards others\n-Dwight made the case for how absurdly inefficient the system is in terms of hours of scientific work\n-I’m going to talk about the economic problems of being tied to corporate megapublishers \n-It also stifles the reforms Dwight was talking about\n\n\n\n
- -There are a number of different issues here, which can make things confusing\n-often peoples’ comments have not distinguished between these\n-I consider Dwight’s talk as having addressed open science and fundamental reform of the flow of research towards publishing\n-In this talk I’m going to focus on open access, the publishing side and particularly its finances\n-The proposition of moving to open access or boycotting Elsevier has already been discussed on CVnet and other places,\n-and I’ve put a few representative quotes here that indicate about where we’re at\n-I’m going to address each of these in arguing that we should together take certain steps to move forward on open access and away from publishing with the likes of Elsevier\n\n\n\n-cannot be achieved by the members or leaders of VSS\n-x2\n\n\n\n
- -But first I want to remind people of how absurd the standard publishing system is- having grown up as a researcher in this system, many of us lose sight of this\n-I made a short video that first showcases the silliness of this situation and then describes a few of the things we can do as individuals\n\n\n\n
- -Why don’t we switch immediately away from publishers like Elsevier and to a fully open access model?\n-As a few people on CVnet or elsewhere have said, the biggest problem is financial \n-A standard journal provides a lot of different services that cost $ (editorial management software, layout, website stuff, marketing)\n-and for this reason, it isn’t clear to everyone that 1) OA is financially viable and\n2) whether we should be boycotting Elsevier, because they’re actually providing a very valuable service\n\n\nIssues vision scientists have reacted to\n\n\n
- -Although it is certainly true that publishign services are worth a lot of money, they’re not worth as much as some publishers charge us!\n-That is, the money that universities puts into this is several times more than it need be\n-What I’ve done here express the cost of subscription journals and the author-pays journals with the same metric\n-Elsevier earns about $258,700,000 in subscription revenue and publishes about 240,000 articles per year = \n-These two journals may be subsidizes somewhat, by ARVO and by Pion. PLoS ONE is no longer subsidized\n-Elsevier has other faults beyond pocketing 37C of every dollar we spend on them. They also were the main backers of the Research Works Act that would have eliminated the NIH mandate that NIH-funded authors make their papers available freely within 12 months of publication\n-these are difficult times financially for universities\n-corporate welfare. \n-monopoly pricing\n\n\n
- -these are difficult times financially for universities\n-corporate welfare. \n-monopoly pricing\n\n\n
- -The problem is that it’s a lot like a monopoly pricing situation\n-The Journal publishers own the journal titles,\n then researchers demand their libraries subscribe to certain journals with no consideration of price, so this has led to massive price inflation\n-Now you have a publisher like Elsevier earning 37% profit on revenue, in an era where the profit margin on all other types of publishing have rapidly dwindled towards zero\n-The Faculty Advisory Council of Harvard University, recently wrote that the traditional journal system is unsustainable and \nasked the faculty to consider resigning from editorial boards of journals owned by objectionable publishers\n-but it goes beyond that, it hinders new models\nWillets, Minister for Universities and Science,\n\n\n\n
- -Here’s a list of some individual actions that researchers in the field can take.\n-If you’re on the editorial board of a journal with a publisher you object to, you can \n-I believe that all of us should be posting our pre-prints or post-prints where allowed to our institutional repositories. This is called the Green road to OA and if everyone did it, then we’d have OA to the literature and publishers would have to adapt\n-Each of these actions are the right thing to do, by my lights at least. And they will push the system a bit towards being more open access\n-But I don’t think they’re enough to effect the full change I’d like to see\n\n \n-$4836/year for Vision Research\n-$24,047/year for Brain Research\n-Corresponding authors from institutions with 2012 site licenses will receive a discounted open access fee of $975, compared to our regular fee of $1,300, to make their papers immediately free online.\n\n\n
- -That is, I don’t think individuals, the little fish here, even a substantial percentage of individuals, on their own will be enough to do more than shift things somewhat towards certain journals\n-but not enough to tip the balance to create a new normal. Not like you an get by collective action of a lot of researchers doing something together\n-let me explain why by addressing the opposite point of view\n\n-Corresponding authors from institutions with 2012 site licenses will receive a discounted open access fee of $975, compared to our regular fee of $1,300, to make their papers immediately free online.\n-Consider balloting the VSS members\n\n\n
- -One response I’ve heard from people I’ll call the “live and let live” argument\n-So it’s usually acting against their own interests to submit to the newer more progressive journals\n-With all these individual actions available, people think that no more major actions need to be taken \n-the papers of most scientists have multiple authors, and one or more of the authors are frequently junior people for whom getting a job is perceived to depend on publishing in the most prestigious journal possible. Most senior scientists therefore find it very hard to insist on publishing with a less-prestigious but better-behaving publisher\n\n\n
- -I don’t think this is a good argument when you consider that the real value of the journal is not the journal itself, but its editorial board, its authors, and its reviewers\n-I’m going to pick on Elsevier as something that we can specifically do something about\n-cannot be achieved by the members or leaders of VSS\n\n\n\n
- -Here’s a fairly comprehensive solution that might address the whole system\n-Assuming that this is beyond the reach of those of us here, I’m going to focus on more immediately-achievable goals\n-Like lobbying your uni to mandate green OA, which will make a lot of research the public is intersted in, not just vision research, OA and a little push to the system towards OA\n-On the web I’ve read countless articles complaining about the current situation with the publishers and open access. But almost noone does anything about it that’s going to change the system\n-This is for the comprehensive solution of moving all of science to open access. We the people of VSS can’t achieve this on our own\n-In summary, as Dwight pointed out there are a lot of undesirable aspects to our system of science\n-A very simple one is how much of our universities’ money is being wasted on high-profit publishers. \n-It also prevents researchers around the world from accessing research they need\n-But it doesn’t need to be that way- and The fault lies not in our publishers\n\n\n-Consider balloting the VSS members\n\n\n