Bill:
Thanks for the link to your site. Again, I am not proposing
exclusion, but inclusion. But I appreciate the brainstorming.
I suspected that the author did not profit; that adds insult to injury.
How many academics actually pay their own "page" and other costs to
these blood-suckers, or is this system perpetuated by the fact that
their institutions foot the bill, effectively laundering tax money
into private pockets. There is something rotten in Berkeley, I suspect, when
A large portion of what Elsevier is selling to the UC community, was
created, vetted, or enhanced by UC faculty. These statistics are from 2003.
* 150 UC faculty members serve as managing editors for Science Direct.
* 964 UC faculty members serve on Elsevier journal editorial
boards, 255 of them from Berkeley.
* Almost 50% of UC held Elsevier journals have at least one UC
faculty member on their editorial board
* 10-15% of the content is written by UC Faculty.
http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Collections/elsevier_case_study.html
If this ain't a conflict of interest, what is? If Science is the
pursuit of truth, should there be any exceptions, any inconsistency
with driving principles permitted to persist? If a practice is
wrong, is it not the duty of all scientists to speak with one voice
against it, and, at long last, stand up for equity?
WT
At 02:57 AM 5/21/2007, William Silvert wrote:
>Unfortunately if we exclude references that are costly to read, there would
>be little in the way of literature reference on this list. In addition to
>most journals, all books would be forbidden texts.
>
>Wayne asked earlier if the author profits, the answer is no. Authors have to
>assign copyright to the journal, and they receive nothing. In fact, if I
>want a PDF of my own paper I am expected to pay for it! This is outrageous.
>At least the practice of demanding page charges seems to be lessening, I no
>longer have to pay to publish.
>
>It has been suggested that journals release papers free after some time, so
>that only people who want the latest information (mostly researchers in the
>same field I suppose) would have to pay or belong to subscribing
>institutions, but most journals have gone the other way. Many journal
>articles are "free" to institutional subscribers for 10 years, but after
>that even subscribers have to pay.
>
>I think the situation is a mess, and since I am retired and no longer need
>to publish in major journals to maintain job security I've opted for
>samizdat (self-publication, on the web). Although I still publish a couple
>of articles a year in the traditional literature, I find the freedom to
>express myself in the language of my choice without the hassles of editorial
>and reviewer prejudices is a great change. I wish that the same freedom
>could be extended to those still working.
>
>Bill Silvert
>http://bill.silvert.org
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wayne Tyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 11:06 PM
>Subject: SCIENCE Access to information Obstacles Open Source Re: Peer
>review, another perspective
>
>
> > Hello Daniel,
> >
> > It was definitely not intended to be rhetorical; I always like to get
> > responses, especially critical ones--how else does one grow?
> >
> > I do question the value and good sense of restricting information
> > access, especially in the 21st century via the Internet. (Time was,
> > if one's research wasn't printed in a clay-paper journal it should be
> > left off one's list of publications, eh? The implication was that it
> > was grey literature, and thus lacked "rigor," regardless of its
> > merit. While I joke a little here, it is not far from the [now
> > historical] truth.)
> >
> > I quite agree with you that it is good, nay, essential, that one of
> > the great values of a free and open forum such as this is the
> > dissemination of information, and in a careful re-reading of my post,
> > I failed to find any language that said or implied any such
> > restriction. I did, however, question whether or not posting links
> > to entities that charge for access came under the prohibition on
> > advertising commercial products. I simply think that the issue is
> > one worthy of discussion by this listserv community.
> >
> > Perhaps the (6,000-plus?) ecolog-l subscribers would care to comment
> > on this hypothetical (however, I might do it): What would be the
> > reaction if I posted a paper on my own website for which I would
> > charge the outrageous sum of $30.00 US for a download, and posted a
> > link to my site on ecolog-l. Would David be justified in rejecting
> > the post? Why or why not?
> >
> > Of course, as David pointed out, academics can download for $00.00
> > out-of-pocket cost, so it is a non-issue for academics--their
> > university libraries* subscribe to the tune of thousands of dollars
> > per year, and we, the taxpayers pay for it, directly or indirectly
> > (but let us avoid any discussion of how private universities get
> > taxpayer money). One possible implication of this is that no one
> > other than academics should be reading such papers anyway.
> >
> > Perhaps you or others can enlighten me further?
> >
> > WT
> >
> > * These sources are open (no charge):
> >
> > http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/Collections/elsevier_case_study.html
> >
> > http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6431958.html
> >
> > At 01:31 PM 5/20/2007, Daniel Tufford wrote:
> >>Hello Wayne,
> >>
> >>I am not sure if this is rhetorical or you expect a response. If it is
> >>news to
> >>you that publishers charge for articles I have done you the favor of
> >>making you
> >>aware. If you paid it that was your choice. More generally, however, I
> >>definitely would not like to see ecolog exclude messages that contain
> >>references to pay-for material. I read of books, articles,
> >>conferences, etc. on
> >>this list that, while I may or may not pay for them, I find it useful to
> >>know
> >>of their existence.
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D.
> >>Research Assistant Professor
> >>University of South Carolina
> >>Department of Biological Sciences
> >>Sumwalt 209F (office)
> >>701 Sumter Street, Room 401 (mail)
> >>Columbia, SC 29208
> >>e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford
> >>Ph: 803.777.3292 Fx: 803.777.3292
> >>
> >>
> >>Quoting Wayne Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >> > It is, in my view, laughably ironic, given the hints about the
> >> > subject matter in the abstract, that reading this paper requires the
> >> > payment of $30.00 US to Elsiver. Presumably the author profits.
> >> >
> >> > What constitutes advertising on this listserv?
> >> >
> >> > WT
> >> >
> >> > At 05:09 AM 5/8/2007, Dan Tufford wrote:
> >> > > >From Futures 39(7)
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Scott, Alister, 2007. Peer review and the social relevance of science.
> >> > >doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009
> >> > ><http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >Abstract
> >> > >
> >> > >Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for
> >> science in
> >> > >helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as
> >> > global
> >> > >environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and
> >> > >competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures
> >> include drives
> >> > >for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of
> >> > >science
> >> > and
> >> > >demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of
> >> > >the
> >> > >social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and
> >> > >quality
> >> > >control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review
> >> > >plays
> >> > a
> >> > >central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main
> >> > >form of
> >> > >decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the
> >> > >promotion of individual scientists within universities and research
> >> > >institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific
> >> > >institutions. Yet, peer review as currently practised can be narrowly
> >> > >scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria
> >> relating to
> >> > >social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by
> >> > >scientists
> >> > to
> >> > >the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives.
> >> > >This
> >> > >article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social
> >> > >relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes
> >> > >some
> >> > >suggestions for ways forward.
> >> > >
> >> > >Regards,
> >> > >
> >> > >Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D.
> >> > >
> >> > >University of South Carolina
> >> > >
> >> > >Department of Biological Sciences
> >> > >
> >> > >209A Sumwalt (office)
> >> > >
> >> > >701 Sumter St, Room 401 (mail)
> >> > >
> >> > >Columbia, SC 29208
> >> > >
> >> > >Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292
> >> > >
> >> > >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > >
> >> > >web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
