Honorable Forum:
It used to be $15, if I recall correctly; it appears they've jacked it up
recently, by 33.333333 percent, if my arithmetic is correct--what does that
reflect, in policy and business terms? Judging by the deafening silence
elicited from previous posts, they are not likely to change their policy of
considering access to be a profit center. It would be interesting to see the
sales figures, but I suspect that it will be a cold day in hell when they're
released. But I suspect that the objective is not to derive income from such
sales, but to discourage low-volume readers to the point of forcing then to
"join." After all, once the article is posted, the cost to the organization
is practically zero. But I repeat myself.
The bottom line remains, is it the goal of the organization creating such
policies to advance and facilitate the understanding of ecology as a
phenomenon, a discipline and a profession, or to retard said understanding
(and support)?
It is ironic that the tradition of science as a practice was, in the "old"
days prior to the advent of the Internet, to freely share one's work with
all interested parties, not just a selected, connected, well-heeled few, and
to "pay it forward." Access to university libraries used to be pretty
universal, and almost anyone could, at their own expense, travel to a
library, engage with a helpful librarian, browse stacks or order
publications, and work in the library. One made notes, and actually wrote in
a quiet atmosphere conducive to continuity of thought. This can still be
done, but it is inefficient and, if papers must be photocopied from books
and journals, rather costly (but for relatively short papers (Lessee, $20
divided by $0.10 per page = 200 pages would be the break-even point, no?
What are the normal page limits or average paper lengths for most scientific
papers?) at least, less so than purchasing 24-hour access to a pdf file).
One can still email most authors with a "Reprint request" or even send a
snailmail request. But this puts the requestor at a competitive
disadvantage, under those having institutional (free to the individual, but
budget-busting to the taxpayer-supported institution and prohibitive to the
smaller institutions, especially those in poorer areas.
A comparison of price trends over time and the hard-copy subscription and
individual reprint costs compared to the electronic access fees would be
enlightening. (Social scientists, awake!)
Ain't it kinda ironic that as the vastly superior economy of the Internet
and computing, etc. have cut publication costs that "publishers" can get
away with gouging-on-steroids with a straight (if evasive) face?
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jane Shevtsov" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 08, 2012 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] ESA Position on Open Access
I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point
in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article
if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at
<
http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
.
Jane Shevtsov
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson
<[email protected]>wrote:
Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less
charitable:
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
*Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29><
http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
*Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29>
>
The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is
offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction
rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such
that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work.
Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the
option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire.
Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially
treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous,
given
that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence
researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of
their rights to the publisher in the process.
Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all
subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become
available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public
monies
should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is
entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public.
-m
On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:
Fellow Ecologgers,
Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the
results
of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an
embargo period? It's available here.
http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/**
ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdf<http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf>
I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of
the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it
underestimates
ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than
later.
Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers
online,
something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but
how
is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial
statement (the latest available online) may be of interest.
http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/**docs/FS2009.pdf<http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf>
Thoughts?
Jane Shevtsov
--
Matt Patterson
MSES/MPA 2012
Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change
(CIPEC)
Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799
Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations
<http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.**
com <http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com>>
--
-------------
Jane Shevtsov
Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia
co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org
"She has future plans and dreams at night.
They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'." --Faith Hill,
"Wild One"
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4132 - Release Date: 01/09/12
