Ecolog:
Let's look for a "model" in which neither authors nor readers are nicked*
for producing or consuming research. Via "noblesse oblige," the larger,
well-endowed academic institutions could and should do this as a public
service, and corporate entities which benefit should pony up out of their
profits rather than sucking public-supported institutions dry by various
subterfuges and blatant pickpocketing. Contrariwise, upstart journals run by
volunteers and grants can further disseminate good research and thinking,
inviting rather than restricting broader participation in science in general
and ecology in particular. Open sources and open critiques would lead to
both sensible restraint and vigorous activity, with substance and merit
being recognized rather than the flim-flam of faddery and the Mad-Hatter
pretensions of the publicity-obsessed. If a new, say, "megajournal" came
into being on-line that incorporated listserv's and the like for bouncing
ideas off others and ironing out true resolutions of conflicting ideas, and
there were discussion boards that included discussions about priorities for
research and such, culminating with more formal publication that was then
reviewed by all, maybe a large number of people would pony up a few bucks to
keep it going, at least at a level that would be low enough to keep out
opportunists but high enough to provide decent support for the dedicated, it
might fly (or something like it might fly eventually). Such a journal might
even attract grants, matching or otherwise. (Note to the philanthropic
institutions: Consider looking at grants to meritorious organizations and
individuals a la McArthur.) Btw, the profit-motivated journals must be run
by people who haven't the foggiest idea about basic pricing theory.
McCallum's idea of passing review duties on to Ph.D. students could even be
expanded to a few rungs below, provided the talent was there. In my view,
the earlier serious students can publish, the better; however, this does not
mean lowering standards or condescendingly labeling them "student papers."
Another good reason for anonymity of submissions and peer reviewers;
however, after publication there should be no anonymity. "Big Names" would
no longer automatically be published, and bright young minds would not
suffer automatic discrimination.
Thanks to the PubCred folks for initiating this discussion; however it sorts
out, I hope no babies will be thrown out with the bathwater but sci-fakery
will be exposed based upon actual merits and broad critics and criticism of
criticism.
WT
*Or held up (pun intended). $40 or $50 or even $15 per download? That does
not advance the dissemination of science; it retards it. Unless, of course,
the objective is to restrict access (irony intended, and it's a
fact--although increasing numbers of on-line journals are becoming
Open-Source) to members of subscribing institutions (at five-figure sums,
thus breaking the budgets of even the likes of the University of California
library system). One way of sending the profit-center-minded journals down
the toilet would be to refuse to publish in them, leaving them for those who
are more interested in the publicity value than the substance. Others and
betters have published on this, but I can't remember the references--dang! I
should be more disciplined.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Raikow" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:03 AM
Subject: [ECOLOG-L] The backwards economics of peer review
Science has got the the only "industry" that gives away high-level editing
services for free (and with increasing editorial responsibilities placed
on the author), pays journals for publication, pays the journal again for
access, lets others profit monetarily, and thanks them for it. If science
publication is a for-profit enterprise, then we should be paid for our
reviewing services. But if you believe science publication is a service
for the greater good, then profits don't fit. Who then should cover the
costs of publication? Either authors, in which case access should be free,
or readers, in which case submission should be free. In either case, it
should be a non-profit enterprise. If the publication companies currently
profiting from our services and products don't like that, then maybe we
should start demanding compensation for our time and effort and share in
the profits made from our time and effort.
Sincerely,
David F. Raikow, Ph. D
Certified Ecologist, Ecological Society of America
_________________________________________
I am seeking new employment in environmental science, to serve as a
project/program manager, researcher, writer, instructor and consultant. My
areas of expertise include basic and applied freshwater ecology and
toxicology in multiple ecosystems using field studies, experimentation,
and models, in federal and academic settings. I have been conducting
original research for the Environmental Protection Agency for the last 4
years, complementing seven overall years of post-graduate professional
experience. Feel free to view my full credentials at
rivercontinua.wordpress.com.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL)
26 W. Martin Luther King Dr.
Cincinnati, OH, 45268
513-569-7383 (Office)
513-569-7609 (Fax)
513-646-1759 (Cell)
[email protected]
_________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.441 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3023 - Release Date: 07/23/10
06:36:00
